why does self-reported emotional intelligence predict job performance… · 2016-12-23 · rather...

Why Does Self-Reported Emotional Intelligence Predict Job Performance?A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Mixed EI

Dana L. JosephUniversity of Central Florida

Jing Jin and Daniel A. NewmanUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Ernest H. O’BoyleThe University of Iowa

Recent empirical reviews have claimed a surprisingly strong relationship between job performance andself-reported emotional intelligence (also commonly called trait EI or mixed EI), suggesting self-reported/mixed EI is one of the best known predictors of job performance (e.g., �̂ � .47; Joseph &Newman, 2010b). Results further suggest mixed EI can robustly predict job performance beyondcognitive ability and Big Five personality traits (Joseph & Newman, 2010b; O’Boyle, Humphrey,Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011). These criterion-related validity results are problematic, given thepaucity of evidence and the questionable construct validity of mixed EI measures themselves. In thecurrent research, we update and reevaluate existing evidence for mixed EI, in light of prior workregarding the content of mixed EI measures. Results of the current meta-analysis demonstrate that (a) thecontent of mixed EI measures strongly overlaps with a set of well-known psychological constructs (i.e.,ability EI, self-efficacy, and self-rated performance, in addition to Conscientiousness, Emotional Stabil-ity, Extraversion, and general mental ability; multiple R � .79), (b) an updated estimate of themeta-analytic correlation between mixed EI and supervisor-rated job performance is �̂ � .29, and (c) themixed EI–job performance relationship becomes nil (� � –.02) after controlling for the set of covariateslisted above. Findings help to establish the construct validity of mixed EI measures and further supportan intuitive theoretical explanation for the uncommonly high association between mixed EI and jobperformance—mixed EI instruments assess a combination of ability EI and self-perceptions, in additionto personality and cognitive ability.

Keywords: emotional intelligence, job performance, heterogeneous domain sampling, personality,self-efficacy

Propelled by the New York Times bestseller of Daniel Goleman(1995), the concept of emotional intelligence (EI) has gained agreat amount of public popularity and business attention in the pasttwo decades; EI is currently considered a widely accepted practi-tioner tool for hiring, training, leadership development, and teambuilding by the business community. As evidence of this, Gole-man’s (1995) book has been touted as one of the 25 most influ-ential business management books of all time by Time magazine(Sachs, 2011), and Goleman’s (1998) article published in HarvardBusiness Review has become the most requested reprint from thisjournal in the last four decades (Sardo, 2004). Beyond the popu-

larity of Goleman’s work, a search of consulting firm websitesindicates more than 150 consulting firms offer EI-related productsand services (including two of the largest industrial/organizationalpsychology consulting firms, Development Dimensions Interna-tional and Personnel Decisions International). Indeed, EI serviceshave become a multimillion-dollar consulting industry (Grewal &Salovey, 2005), with some estimates suggesting that 75% of For-tune 500 companies have adopted EI-related products and services(Bradberry & Greaves, 2009). Despite the commercial expansionof the concept, some scholars from the organizational scienceshave been skeptical about it, given the lack of consensus withregard to its definition, measurement, and validity (Landy, 2005;Murphy, 2006).

For instance, one definitional ambiguity stems from the “emo-tional intelligence” label having been historically applied to two,relatively distinct theoretical constructs. The first sort of EI con-struct has been defined as “the ability to carry out accurate rea-soning about emotions and the ability to use emotions and emo-tional knowledge to enhance thought” (Mayer, Roberts, &Barsade, 2008, p. 511), which emphasizes EI as an actual ability,or facet of intelligence (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; MacCann,Joseph, Newman, & Roberts, 2014). The second definition of EIuses the EI label as an umbrella term that encompasses a constel-lation of personality traits, affect, and self-perceived abilities,

This article was published Online First September 22, 2014.Dana L. Joseph, Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida;

Jing Jin, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Daniel A. Newman, Department of Psychology and School ofLabor and Employment Relations, University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-paign; Ernest H. O’Boyle, Tippie College of Business, The University of Iowa.

Jing Jin is now at Development Dimensions International, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dana L.Joseph, Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, 4000 Cen-tral Florida Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32816. E-mail: [email protected]

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

Journal of Applied Psychology © 2014 American Psychological Association2015, Vol. 100, No. 2, 298–342 0021-9010/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037681

298

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037681

rather than actual aptitude (Bar-On, 1997; Goleman, 1995;Petrides & Furnham, 2001). These two definitions have come to becalled ability EI and mixed EI, respectively. Meta-analytic resultshave demonstrated that mixed EI measures and ability EI measuresintercorrelate only moderately (�̂ � .26, Joseph & Newman,2010b; �̂ � .14, van Rooy, Viswesvaran, & Pluta, 2005), and theyexhibit distinctive patterns of relationships with job performance.For example, Joseph and Newman (2010b) found that mixed EImeasures exhibited a strong criterion-related validity coefficient of�̂ � .47, whereas ability EI measures exhibited markedly lowervalidity for predicting job performance (�̂ � .18). Results of recentmeta-analyses further suggest that mixed EI measures can robustlypredict job performance beyond cognitive ability and Big Fivepersonality traits (�R2 � .142 � 14%; Joseph & Newman, 2010b;�R2 � .068 � 7%; O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, &Story, 2011), whereas ability EI measures exhibit near-zero incre-mental validity (�R2 � .002 � 0.2%; Joseph & Newman, 2010b;�R2 � .004 � 0.4%; O’Boyle et al., 2011). Joseph and Newman(2010b) described this combination of results as “an ugly state ofaffairs” (p. 72) because many have considered ability EI (i.e., theweaker predictor of job performance) to be based upon a strongertheoretical model (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; Matthews, Roberts,& Zeidner, 2004; Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002; Murphy,2006), whereas mixed EI (i.e., the stronger predictor of job per-formance) has been at the center of controversy due to theoreticalunderdevelopment (Murphy, 2006). The lack of theoretical con-sensus surrounding what mixed EI is, combined with its superiorpredictive power, has created a paradox that we believe deservesadditional clarification. Thus, in responding to previous calls for atheoretical understanding of the substantive content of mixed EI(Joseph & Newman, 2010b; Locke, 2005), we sought in the currentstudy to answer two questions: “What do mixed EI instrumentsmeasure?” and “Why are mixed EI instruments related to jobperformance?”

In the current article, we thus propose to make two contributionsto the study of mixed EI and job performance. First, we shed lightinto the black box of mixed EI construct validity, to meta-analytically test past conceptualizations of what content mixed EIinstruments actually measure. Second, in an attempt to explain whymixed EI is so strongly related to job performance, we illuminatecommon covariates of mixed EI and job performance and assessthe extent to which mixed EI demonstrates incremental validityabove and beyond these common covariates.

What Do Mixed EI Instruments Measure?

In order to understand what might be in the black box of mixedEI instruments, we note that prior authors who have questioned theconstruct validity of mixed EI have done so primarily becausemany mixed EI items appear to capture well-established constructsother than emotional intelligence (Joseph & Newman, 2010b;Mayer et al., 2008; Murphy, 2006). In other words, it appears thatauthors of mixed EI measures may have (unknowingly) engaged indomain sampling (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Ghiselli, Campbell,& Zedeck, 1981; Nunnally, 1967), whereby mixed EI measureswere constructed to sample from various well-known contentdomains in the field of psychology. Although domain samplingtypically refers to the process of sampling items from a homoge-neous content domain (e.g., developing a Conscientiousness scale

by drawing items from the Conscientiousness domain), the devel-opment of mixed EI measures appears to have involved heteroge-neous domain sampling, or the sampling of items from a diverseset of content domains. Whereas heterogeneous domain samplingmay illuminate why these measures appear to capture a “grab bag”of content domains, the question still remains: What exactly arethese content domains that constitute “mixed EI”? In the follow-ing, we draw on prior theory and content analysis of popular mixedEI measures to hypothesize that these measures likely capture thefollowing content domains: Conscientiousness, Extraversion, self-related qualities (i.e., general self-efficacy and self-rated perfor-mance), ability EI, Emotional Stability, and cognitive ability.

We begin by noting that several EI scholars have recentlyoffered suggestions regarding the content captured by mixed EImeasures in an attempt to clear up the muddied waters of theconstruct. Specifically, Mayer et al. (2008) have summarized thatmixed EI covers four content areas: (a) achievement motivation(which is similar to the industriousness facet of Conscientiousness;Roberts, Chernyshenko, Stark, & Goldberg, 2005), (b) control-related qualities such as impulse control and flexibility (whichtheoretically overlap with the self-control facet of Conscientious-ness; Roberts et al., 2005), (c) gregariousness and assertiveness(which are two facets of Extraversion; Costa & McCrae, 1992),and (d) self-related qualities (e.g., positive self-appraisals, such asgeneral self-efficacy). Thus, Mayer et al. (2008) appear to havesuggested that mixed EI overlaps with Conscientiousness, Extra-version, and self-related qualities such as general self-efficacy. Wewill discuss each of these potential overlaps below. Before we do,we would like to point out that prior theoretical work on theconstruct of mixed EI is scant. As a result, when discussing theconstruct of mixed EI, we often discuss the measures of mixed EIrather than the construct (i.e., because it is not clear what theconstruct of mixed EI actually is, we tend—by necessity—toconfound the construct with the measure; cf. Arthur & Villado,2008). This is a natural result of a theoretically underdevelopedconstruct, and indeed in the current article, we attempt to helpremedy this very issue by developing an understanding of whichconstructs are subsumed by mixed EI.

Conscientiousness and Mixed EI

As previously mentioned, prior theoretical work suggests thatmixed EI taps attributes like achievement-motivation and control-related qualities such as low impulsiveness (Mayer et al., 2008;Petrides & Furnham, 2001; Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2004),which fall into the personality domain of trait Conscientiousness.For example, Bar-On’s (1997) mixed EI model includes subfacetsof self-actualization, or striving to achieve one’s personal goals,and impulse control, or effectively controlling one’s emotions—which are similar to the industriousness and self-control facets ofConscientiousness, respectively (Roberts et al., 2005). Similarly,Goleman’s mixed EI model (Wolff, 2006) includes initiative (i.e.,“readiness to act on opportunities,” p. 3) and achievement (i.e.,“striving to improve or meeting a standard of excellence,” p. 3),which theoretically overlap with Conscientiousness facets.

In addition to the content overlap between Conscientiousnessand mixed EI, a secondary reason that one might expect a positiverelationship between the two constructs is because Conscientious-ness has been characterized as a tendency to follow socially

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

299SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41087511_Emotional_Intelligence_An_Integrative_Meta-Analysis_and_Cascading_Model?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==





https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5907081_Human_Abilities_Emotional_Intelligence?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227609479_Trait_emotional_intelligence_Psychometric_Investigation_with_reference_to_established_trait_taxonomies?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==


prescribed norms (John & Srivastava, 1999), and this dutifulnessin adhering to norms likely carries over into emotional roles aswell. So conscientious individuals may exert extra effort in adher-ing to emotion-related norms (i.e., Conscientiousness gives rise toa motivational state that induces one to be meticulous in his or hertask performance [Emmons, 1989], including emotional tasks suchas perceiving one’s emotion, perceiving others’ emotion, display-ing appropriate emotions, and so forth). We propose that emotionalskills and abilities develop naturally as a result of increased effortin adhering to emotion-related norms (e.g., the more one exertseffort in displaying appropriate emotions, the better one becomesat doing so). Thus, we expected Conscientiousness to be positivelyrelated to mixed EI, which is supported by prior meta-analyticestimates indicating a strong relationship between Conscientious-ness and mixed EI (�̂ � .38 in both Joseph & Newman, 2010b, andO’Boyle et al., 2011).

Extraversion and Mixed EI

Extraversion, a dimension of the Big Five, includes two compo-nents: social vitality and social dominance (Helson & Kwan, 2000).Some have argued that the social vitality component reflects anunderlying need or desire for social contact that often results in agreater number of social relationships for extraverted individuals(Hotard, McFatter, McWhirter, & Stegall, 1989). In the process ofestablishing an extravert’s expansive social network, he or she likelydevelops a set of emotion-related skills (e.g., the ability to displaypositive affect) that are used to build social bonds. Many of theemotion-related skills that are likely developed as a result of anextravert’s desire to form social relationships are dimensions of mixedEI, including relationship skills, social competence (Petrides & Furn-ham, 2001), interpersonal relationships, and happiness (Bar-On,1997). Some mixed models of EI also explicitly include assertiveness(Bar-On, 1997; Petrides & Furnham, 2003), which directly reflects thesocial dominance facet of Extraversion (and the assertiveness facet ofExtraversion in the revised NEO Personality Inventory [NEO–PI–R];Costa & McCrae, 1992), reiterating the overlap between Extraversionand mixed EI due to common elements of both constructs. The strongempirical relationship between Extraversion and mixed EI has alsobeen well documented (�̂ � .46, Joseph & Newman, 2010b; �̂ � .49,O’Boyle et al., 2011), supporting the notion that mixed EI is posi-tively related to Extraversion because (a) extraverts’ inclination toestablish social bonds results in enhanced emotional and social skillsand (b) the social dominance component of Extraversion explicitlyoverlaps with dimensions of mixed EI (e.g., assertiveness; Bar-On,1997).

Self-Related Qualities and Mixed EI

The third content area that Mayer et al. (2008) suggested is cap-tured by mixed EI measures is self-related qualities. The idea thatself-related qualities may account for the relationship between mixedEI and job performance has been similarly articulated by Newman,Joseph, and MacCann (2010), who theorized that mixed EI measurescapture self-efficacy and self-assessments of past job performance.First, general/generalized self-efficacy represents one’s perception ofhis or her ability to cope with life challenges and task demands acrossa variety of different situations (e.g., Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001;Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997; Sherer et al., 1982). Self-consistency

theory suggests that individuals have a desire to behave in a way thatis consistent with their own image (Korman, 1970). When consider-ing emotional and social behavior, it is likely that individuals whohave a desire to maintain a positive self-image (i.e., individuals withhigh general self-efficacy) have cultivated emotional and social skillsthat allow them to display appropriate social behaviors to maintaintheir self-image. We propose that these emotional and social skills arerepresented in the construct of mixed EI; for example, the display ofappropriate social behaviors requires dimensions of mixed EI such associal responsibility (i.e., the ability to cooperate with others), empa-thy (i.e., the ability to understand and appreciate the feelings ofothers), and interpersonal relationships (i.e., the ability to establishand maintain relationships; Bar-On, 1997). Therefore, individualshigh in general self-efficacy likely have high mixed EI in order todisplay social behaviors that are consistent with their self-views,whereas those low in general self-efficacy may shy away from socialrelationships because doing so is consistent with their self-views (andas a result, these individuals fail to develop emotional skills andabilities for maintaining social relationships). In addition, an exami-nation of the content of mixed EI measures reveals overlap betweenthe constructs of general self-efficacy and mixed EI, including theself-regard facet of Bar-On’s Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i;Bar-On, 1997), which represents the propensity to regard oneself asgenerally competent, and Goleman’s (1998) self-confidence dimen-sion, which also represents one’s sense of self-worth (Wolff, 2006).Thus, we expected general self-efficacy to be positively related tomixed EI because mixed EI is one avenue through which an individ-ual can maintain his or her self-image and because of the contentoverlap between general self-efficacy and mixed EI.

Second, from looking at the content of mixed EI scales, it alsoappears that these mixed EI instruments tap into something akin toself-rated performance. Unfortunately, these mixed EI measuresare largely proprietary (thus, the mixed EI items cannot be pre-sented here in any way), or else a few example items might easilysupport the notion that mixed EI scales capture self-rated perfor-mance. These types of items are similar to the items “I feel I canproduce a lot of good work,” “I perform well in teams,” “I haveaccomplished many things in the last year,” and “I have performedwell under pressure” (although these are not actual items on anymixed EI measure, they are very similar). We note that these items(and their original counterparts present in actual mixed EI mea-sures) are conceptually closer to self-ratings of general perfor-mance rather than self-ratings of job performance per se (e.g., arespondent may evaluate his or her performance as a member of asports team when answering the item “I perform well in teams”).In the current article, we argue that self-ratings of job performanceare a component of mixed EI because they are a key aspect ofone’s perceptions of performance in general (e.g., perceived ex-cellence in public speaking at work would likely lead to perceivedstrength in public speaking in any context). This is because: (a)self-ratings of general performance are likely estimated via aprocess where one’s broad perceptions of performance are formedas a mental average of his or her specific performance acrossvarious life domains, and (b) as a mental average of performanceacross all life domains, self-ratings of performance likely over-sample from the work domain because work plays a central role inmost individuals’ lives (e.g., Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2009;Wanberg, 2012). Therefore, we argue that self-perceptions of jobperformance are an indicator of the domain of self-perceived

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

300 JOSEPH, JIN, NEWMAN, AND O’BOYLE

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51460306_The_Individual_Experience_of_Unemployment?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==


general performance, and as such, we expect self-rated job perfor-mance to be positively related to mixed EI.

Ability EI and Mixed EI

Beyond the conceptual overlaps between mixed EI andConscientiousness/Extraversion/self-rated qualities that were pro-posed by Mayer et al. (2008), an additional variable that may addinsight into the construct validity of mixed EI is ability EI itself.Although prior work has shown only a modest relationship betweenability EI and mixed EI (�̂ � .26; Joseph & Newman, 2010b), this islikely due to the content breadth of mixed EI (i.e., emotional abilitiesonly constitute a fraction of mixed EI content). Self-perception theorywould suggest that one’s self-perceptions are inferred from one’sbehavior (Bern, 1972), and given that mixed EI involves one’s self-perceptions of his or her emotional abilities, we would expect theseself-perceptions to be drawn from one’s actual emotional abilities(i.e., ability EI, which includes behaviors such as emotion expression,voice inflection, and emotion-related gestures; Salovey & Mayer,1990; see also, Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006).It has been claimed in prior work that mixed EI includes self-perceived emotional abilities (Petrides & Furnham, 2001), and aperusal of items from the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997), for example, showsthat some of these items clearly reflect self-ascribed emotion regula-tion and emotion perception abilities. In particular, the emotionalself-awareness and empathy facets of Bar-On’s EQ-i appear to ad-dress emotion perception ability and emotion understanding (twofacets of ability EI; Salovey & Mayer, 1990), and the emotionalawareness and emotional self-control facets of Goleman’s (1998)model appear to capture emotion perception ability and emotionregulation ability (also facets of ability EI; Salovey & Mayer, 1990).Therefore, it is likely that actual emotional ability (i.e., ability EI) ispart of the content that is sampled within mixed EI measures.

Emotional Stability and Mixed EI

Popular markers of Emotional Stability include low levels of traitnegative affect (Gross, Sutton, & Ketelaar, 1998) and dampenedemotional reactions to daily stressors (Marco & Suls, 1993; Suls,Green, & Hillis, 1998). These characteristics of emotionally stableindividuals likely reflect an enhanced ability to manage emotions anduse effective emotion regulation strategies (e.g., reappraisal; Gross &John, 2003). Therefore, we expected Emotional Stability to be posi-tively related to mixed EI because Emotional Stability involves theuse of emotion regulation skills that mixed EI comprises (e.g., stresstolerance; Bar-On, 1997). In addition, De Raad (2005) has conductedempirical analyses on the content validity of several mixed EI mea-sures and shown that for six mixed EI measures, 42% of the itemswere classified by content experts as direct measures of EmotionalStability. This content validity evidence is consistent with the largemeta-analytic relationship between Emotional Stability and mixed EIinstruments (�̂ � .53, Joseph & Newman, 2010b; �̂ � .54, O’Boyleet al., 2011), and the conceptual overlap between several facets ofmixed EI scales and Emotional Stability (e.g., stress tolerance, Bar-On, 1997; optimism, Goleman, 1998). Thus, it appears that part of thecontent “mix” in mixed EI measurement is the well-known concept ofEmotional Stability.

Cognitive Ability and Mixed EI

At this point, we note that any attempt by us to considercognitive ability as a content domain that is captured in measuresof mixed EI would be largely antithetical to the philosophy uponwhich many mixed EI measures were founded. That is, cognitiveability is explicitly excluded from most mixed models of EI. Forexample, Bar-On’s (1997) mixed model of EI is said to include “anarray of noncognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills thatinfluence one’s ability to succeed in coping with environmentaldemands and pressures” (italics added, p. 14). Interestingly, how-ever, this very model also includes facets of apparent cognitiveability components such as problem solving and reality testing(Bar-On, 1997). In addition, cognitive ability is theorized to pro-mote individual adaptability, primarily due to the additional infor-mation processing that is required in novel situations (LePine,Colquitt, & Erez, 2000). Because adaptability is a component ofmixed EI (i.e., flexibility, or one’s ability to adapt to unfamiliar anddynamic circumstances; Bar-On, 1997), we expected cognitiveability to be related to mixed EI—that is, individuals high incognitive ability can handle the additional information processingdemands of unfamiliar situations. Because it appears that mixedmodels of EI may actually include cognitive ability components(i.e., some mixed models are theorized to include abilities as partof the mixture of constructs; Boyatzis, 2009; Mayer et al., 2008;Petrides & Furnham, 2001) and because mixed EI models involveadaptability, which is related to cognitive ability via improvedinformation processing in novel situations (LePine et al., 2000), weexpected to find empirical overlap between measures of generalmental ability and measures of mixed EI.

In sum, we have proposed that mixed EI measures have sampledfrom several well-established construct domains, including Conscien-tiousness, Extraversion, general self-efficacy, self-rated performance,ability EI, Emotional Stability, and cognitive ability. Because mixedEI measures appear to sample so heavily from these seven constructdomains, we expected that individual variation in mixed EI will belargely accounted for by these seven components.

Why Are Mixed EI Instruments Related toJob Performance?

Previous meta-analyses of mixed EI suggest a strong relation-ship between mixed EI and job performance (Joseph & Newman,2010b; O’Boyle et al., 2011), with estimated criterion validities asstrong as, or stronger than, any other personality trait. To illumi-nate why mixed EI has such a robust relationship with job perfor-mance, we demonstrate that the proposed content domains fromwhich mixed EI measures are sampled (see previous section) arealso related to job performance. In other words, mixed EI taps intoa mix of constructs that have well-established relationships withjob performance, which explains why mixed EI predicts job per-formance.

Why the Seven Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and OtherCharacteristics (KSAOs) Relate to Job Performance

For example, Conscientiousness (a proposed construct domainfrom which mixed EI measures are sampled) has a known positiverelationship with job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Bar-

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.






rick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; a linktheoretically due to Conscientious employees’ accomplishmentstriving, status striving [Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002] andgoal setting [Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993]). Similarly, evi-dence suggests Extraversion can have reasonable predictive valid-ity for job performance, especially for success in management andsales jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Vinchur, Schippmann, Swit-zer, & Roth, 1998; due in part to status striving; Barrick et al.,2002), and Emotional Stability also has an established positiverelationship with job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Bar-rick et al., 2001; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; a relationship explainedby the fact that Neurotic individuals exhibit poorer emotionalcoping skills; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007; Joseph & New-man, 2010b). Thus, these three Big Five variables help explain therelationship between mixed EI and job performance, because theyare common antecedents to both constructs.

In addition to these Big Five personality constructs, generalself-efficacy is thought to predict work performance by way ofmotivation, goal-setting (Erez & Judge, 2001), and job engage-ment (Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010). In other words, individ-uals with high general self-efficacy should maintain both directionand persistence of effort toward the job at hand. Therefore, ifmixed EI measures are sampled from the general self-efficacydomain, then self-efficacy should partly explain the mixed EI–jobperformance relationship. Further, because past performance is thebest predictor of future performance (see meta-analysis by Stur-man, Cheramie, & Cashen, 2005; as well as seminal discussions byCorballis, 1965; Humphreys, 1960; Jones, 1962; and Wernimont &Campbell, 1968), we propose that another key mechanism bywhich mixed EI scales predict job performance is that mixed EImeasures ask respondents to report, in part, how well they havegenerally performed on projects in the past. Accordingly, weexpect self-rated performance to be considered a common covari-ate of both mixed EI and supervisor-rated job performance.

Finally, cognitive ability appears to contribute to mixed EI mea-sures, and it is a fundamental antecedent of job performance (Schmidt& Hunter, 1998), largely due to the tendency for high-ability employ-ees to acquire job knowledge (Schmidt, Hunter, & Outerbridge,1986). Moreover, ability EI has been theorized to relate to job per-formance via enhanced social interactions, advanced understanding ofthe emotional demands on the situation (O’Boyle et al., 2011), andincreased attentional resources (because emotion regulation skill canslow cognitive resource depletion; Joseph & Newman, 2010b). Therelationship between ability EI and job performance has been sup-ported via meta-analytic evidence (Joseph & Newman, 2010b;O’Boyle et al., 2011), and thus, it appears that cognitive ability andability EI are common antecedents to both mixed EI measures and jobperformance, aiding in the explanation of why mixed EI and jobperformance are strongly related.

Heterogeneous Domain Sampling Model

In summary of our arguments, the various constructs tapped byself-report mixed EI measures (i.e., Conscientiousness, Extraversion,general self-efficacy, self-rated performance, ability EI, EmotionalStability, and cognitive ability) also appear to be antecedents of jobperformance. Therefore, these seven constructs should explain therelationship between mixed EI and job performance. One conse-quence of this state of affairs is that the incremental validity of mixedEI for predicting job performance should be quite limited once theseconstructs are controlled. In other words, we are advancing a theo-retical model of the mixed EI–job performance relationship that werefer to as the heterogeneous domain sampling model (see Figure 1,Model A; Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Nunnally, 1967). According toour hypothesized model, mixed EI measures will fail to account forincremental validity in job performance after we have controlled forConscientiousness, Extraversion, general self-efficacy, self-rated per-formance, ability EI, Emotional Stability, and cognitive ability. In

Figure 1. Model A. Heterogeneous Domain Sampling Model (no incremental validity, no mediation). This is ourhypothesized model. Standardized estimates. All predictors were allowed to intercorrelate. � p � .05; �2(df � 1) �0.19 (p � .05), root-mean-square error of approximation � .00, comparative fit index � 1.00, Tucker–Lewis index �1.00, standardized root-mean-square residual � .001 (model fit is good). Perf � performance.

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12032574_Relationship_of_Core_Self-Evaluations_Traits-Self-Esteem_Generalized_Self-Efficacy_Locus_of_Control_and_Emotional_Stability-With_Job_Satisfaction_and_Job_Performance_A_Meta-Analysis?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==

other words, we believe these seven KSAOs represent all the essentialconstructs that constitute the “mix” in mixed EI that is responsible forthe large observed criterion-related validity of mixed EI.

An expert reviewer pointed out that our hypothesized heteroge-neous domain sampling model can be thought of as one model, in aset of alternative models, that can each explain why mixed EI relatesto job performance. This set of alternative models includes (a) ourheterogeneous domain sampling model (Figure 1, Model A), which isa no mediation model, in which mixed EI exhibits no incrementalvalidity beyond the seven KSAOs, and there is no mediation of theKSAOs by mixed EI, (b) a partial mediation model, labeled the“incremental validity model” (Figure 2, Model B), in which mixed EIpredicts job performance partly because it transmits the effects of theseven KSAOs and partly because mixed EI represents some addi-tional content that relates to job performance beyond the sevenKSAOs, and (c) a full mediation model (Figure 3, Model C), in whichmixed EI fully captures all of the generative mechanisms by which theseven KSAOs relate to job performance. As stated previously, in thecurrent study, we are hypothesizing the first model (Figure 1, ModelA), which offers a simple heterogeneous domain sampling explana-tion for why mixed EI relates to job performance. We tested thismodel (Figure 1, Model A) by comparing it against the two alternativemodels suggested by the expert reviewer (cf. incremental validity[partial mediation] model [Figure 2, Model B], and full mediationmodel [Figure 3, Model C]).

If our heterogeneous domain sampling model is accurate, then itimplies that a combination of traits—Extraversion, Emotional Sta-bility, Conscientiousness, general self-efficacy, self-rated perfor-mance, cognitive ability, and ability EI—together explain whymixed EI measures predict job performance so well. To expandupon this point, individuals who possess these traits should havemotivational tendencies and goals characterized by high status

striving and accomplishment striving (i.e., Extraversion and Con-scientiousness; Barrick et al., 2002), as well as elevated perfor-mance expectations (i.e., high self-rated performance and generalself-efficacy). These individuals should further be equipped toattain these goals and motivational agendas via their heightenedemotional coping skills, emotion regulation skills, and emotionalunderstanding (low Neuroticism, Connor-Smith & Flachsbart,2007; high Ability EI, Joseph & Newman, 2010b), as well as theirability to more quickly absorb job knowledge (cognitive ability;Schmidt et al., 1986). Mixed EI thus offers a high-utility mixtureof individual traits to predict job performance.

Defining Job Performance

Before we move on to describe the methods used in the currentstudy, we first briefly expound on our definition of the criterion, jobperformance. Indeed, past discrepancies in criterion definition haveled to some inconsistency in prior meta-analytic estimates of therelationship between mixed EI and job performance (i.e., �̂ � .47,Joseph & Newman, 2010b; �̂ � .28, O’Boyle et al., 2011). That is, inpast meta-analyses, O’Boyle and colleagues used an inclusive defi-nition of job performance that incorporated both subjective ratingsand objective results performance measures (in addition to studentacademic performance and self-rated job performance measures),whereas Joseph and Newman used a narrower definition of thecriterion to include only supervisor-rated job performance (see Table1). As such, it remains unclear how the mixed EI-job performancerelationship might change across different criterion measures.

With regard to the distinction between subjective ratings versusobjective results measures (e.g., sales, number of widgets produced)of the criterion, researchers have long lamented that objective mea-sures of performance tend to be contaminated by factors external to

Figure 2. Model B. Incremental Validity Model (partial mediation). Standardized estimates. All predictorswere allowed to intercorrelate. Model is saturated (df � 0), so model fit cannot be estimated (i.e., fit is perfect,by design).

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


the individual (e.g., sales markets, sick leave policies, and equipmentmalfunctions; Campbell, 1990; Landy & Farr, 1983; Murphy &Cleveland, 1995; Smith, 1976), suggesting that objective results mea-sures reflect both employee performance behavior and environmentalfactors that constitute a psychometric nuisance. We here have adoptedCampbell, McCloy, Oppler, and Sager’s (1993) definition of jobperformance as employee behavior, and we focused on supervisorratings of performance as our primary measure of job performancebehavior (see J. W. Johnson, 2001; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). For ourown theoretical view on how subjective performance ratings andobjective criterion measures, respectively, relate to mixed EI, we haveborrowed from Aguinis (2013, p. 95) and Grote (1996, p. 37), whospecified that employee KSAOs/traits (e.g., mixed EI) give rise toemployee job performance behaviors, which in turn give rise toobjective results measures of productivity (i.e., a mediation model).As such, we propose that the effects of mixed EI on results (e.g., sales,productivity) are downstream from (and explained by) the effects ofmixed EI on rated employee performance behaviors. Therefore, wepredicted that the effect of mixed EI on objective results criteria ismediated by supervisor ratings of job performance. Unfortunately,there is a paucity of available primary studies connecting objectiveresults to several of the KSAOs, which precludes us from testing thecomplete multistep mediation model (KSAOs ¡ Mixed EI ¡ Sub-jective job performance ¡ Objective results). Therefore, we can onlytest the final three steps of this mediation sequence in the current study(i.e., Mixed EI ¡ Subjective job performance ¡ Objective results;see Figure 4).

Method

To test our hypothesized models, we first updated the corre-lations of both mixed EI and ability EI with job performance.Table 1 lists the primary studies that were originally coded inthe meta-analyses of Joseph and Newman (2010b) and O’Boyleet al. (2011), as well as the primary studies uniquely included in

the current analysis. We also conducted 16 original meta-analyses, estimating the bivariate relationships of both generalself-efficacy and self-rated job performance with mixed EI,ability EI, Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness, Extraver-sion, and cognitive ability (shown in Table 2). Then, by com-bining published meta-analyses with our original meta-analyses, weformed a meta-analytic correlation matrix (Table 3). We used thismeta-analytic correlation matrix as the basis for a series ofstructural models to test (a) the amount of variance in mixed EImeasures captured by a set of seven predictors and (b) the effectof these predictors on the mixed EI–job performance relation-ship (see Figures 1, 2, and 3). Although some scholars haveadvocated the combination of meta-analysis with structuralequation modeling (Shadish, 1996; Viswesvaran & Ones,1995), others have pointed out potential limitations of theapproach because this process (a) uses a pooled correlationmatrix instead of a covariance matrix, (b) lacks a definitivesample size for the meta-analytic correlation matrix, (c) as-sumes the elements in the meta-analytic correlation matrixrepresent a common population, and (d) ignores second-ordersampling error (see Cheung & Chan, 2005; Landis, 2013;Newman, Jacobs, & Bartram, 2007). Unfortunately, the onlyalternative procedure for testing a structural model with meta-analytic data (i.e., two-stage structural equation modeling, orTSSEM; Cheung & Chan, 2005) requires at least one primarystudy to measure all of the constructs included in the model, andbecause no primary study in the current meta-analytic databasemet this requirement, we instead used meta-analytic SEM. Indoing so, we followed Landis’s (2013) set of recommendations(i.e., we drew the elements in the matrix that were not estimatedas part of the current study from published meta-analyses ratherthan conducting mini-meta-analyses, and we warn the readerthat causal inferences cannot be drawn from these analyses). Asfor the problem of failing to specify a particular target popu-

Figure 3. Model C. Full Mediation Model. Standardized estimates. All predictors were allowed to intercor-relate. � p � .05; �2(df � 7) � 232.84 (p � .05), root-mean-square error of approximation � .22, comparativefit index � .88, Tucker–Lewis index � .37, standardized root-mean-square residual � .07 (model fit is poor).

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


Tab

le1

Pri

mar

ySt

udie

sof

the

Rel

atio

nshi

psof

Mix

edE

Ian

dA

bili

tyE

IW

ith

Job

Per

form

ance

(Com

pari

ngC

urre

ntM

eta-

Ana

lysi

sto

Jose

ph&

New

man

,20

10b,

and

O’B

oyle

etal

.,20

11)

Stud

ySa

mpl

esi

zeE

IM

easu

rePe

rfor

man

cem

easu

reE

ffec

tsi

zeM

eta-

anal

ysis

a

Mix

edE

Ian

djo

bpe

rfor

man

ceA

ustin

,E

vans

,G

oldw

ater

,&

Potte

r(2

005)

154

Aus

tin,

Sakl

ofsk

e,H

uang

,&

McK

enne

y(2

004)

Aca

dem

icpe

rfor

man

ce.2

2B

Bac

hman

,St

ein,

Cam

pbel

l,&

Sita

reni

os(2

000)

36E

Q-i

(Bar

-On,

1997

)Su

cces

sin

debt

colle

ctio

n.3

0(o

rigi

nal

t�

1.84

8)B

Bri

zz(2

004)

32E

CI

(2nd

ed.;

Wol

ff,

2006

)Pa

rish

ione

rsu

ppor

t(s

acra

men

tal

supp

ort

plus

fina

ncia

lsu

ppor

t).1

2B

F.W

.B

row

n,B

ryan

t,&

Rei

lly(2

006)

95E

Q-i

(Bar

-On,

1997

)Su

bord

inat

e-ra

ted

lead

eref

fect

iven

ess

.0

2B

Bud

nik

(200

3)—

——

—B

Byr

ne(2

003)

325

EC

I(S

ala,

2002

)Su

perv

isor

-rat

edpe

rfor

man

ceba

sed

onM

anag

eria

lSk

ills

Que

stio

nnai

re(S

mith

er&

Seltz

er,

2001

)

.27

A,

C

Byr

ne,

Dom

inic

k,Sm

ither

,&

Rei

lly(2

007)

161

EC

I(2

nded

.;W

olff

,20

06)

Cow

orke

r(e

.g.,

peer

s,su

perv

isor

s,su

bord

inat

es)

ratin

gof

man

ager

ial

skill

s.2

7B

Car

mel

i(2

003)

98Sc

hutte

etal

.(1

998)

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.3

2B

Car

mel

i&

Josm

an(2

006)

215

Schu

tteet

al.

(199

8)Su

perv

isor

-rat

edta

skpe

rfor

man

ce.4

7A

,B

,C

Cav

ins

(200

5)73

EQ

-i(B

ar-O

n,19

97)

Dir

ecto

r-ra

ted

stud

ent

lead

erpe

rfor

man

ce.2

9(o

rigi

nal

F�

6.28

7)B

Chi

pain

(200

3)12

0Su

cces

sT

ende

ncie

sIn

dica

tor

(ST

I;(T

acca

rino

&L

eona

rd,

1999

)O

bjec

tive

sale

spe

rfor

man

ce.4

2B

Dre

w(2

007)

40E

Q-i

(Bar

-On,

1997

)St

uden

tte

ache

rpe

rfor

man

ce(m

ixtu

reof

othe

r-ra

ting

and

self

-rat

ing)

.31

B

Dul

ewic

z,H

iggs

,&

Slas

ki(2

003)

53E

IQ(D

ulew

icz

&H

iggs

,19

99,

2000

)Su

perv

isor

-rat

edm

anag

emen

tpe

rfor

man

ce.3

2A

,B

,C

Gab

el,

Dol

an,

&C

erdi

n(2

005)

59E

Q-i

Span

ish

vers

ion

(Uga

rriz

a,20

01)

Supe

rvis

or-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.06

C

Gol

dsm

ith(2

008)

24E

Q-i

(Bar

-On,

1997

)Su

perv

isor

-rat

edw

orkp

lace

perf

orm

ance

.20

A,

CG

over

nmen

tA

ccou

ntin

gO

ffic

e(1

998)

——

——

BH

ader

(200

7)12

9E

QI

(Rah

imet

al.,

2002

)Su

perv

isor

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.2

9A

,C

Han

na(2

008)

46E

CI

(Sal

a,20

02)

Supe

rvis

or-r

ated

resi

denc

eha

llas

sist

ants

job

perf

orm

ance

.21

A,

C

Hig

gs(2

004)

289

EIQ

-G(D

ulew

icz

&H

iggs

,20

00)

Perf

orm

ance

asse

ssm

ent

byth

epe

rson

nel

depa

rtm

ent

.22

B

Hop

kins

&B

ilim

oria

(200

8)75

(Mal

e)E

CI

(Boy

atzi

s&

Gol

eman

,20

01,

com

posi

teof

othe

rra

tings

)Su

perv

isor

-rat

edsu

cces

s(a

nnua

lpe

rfor

man

cepl

usan

nual

pote

ntia

l).2

3B

30(F

emal

e)E

CI

(Boy

atzi

s&

Gol

eman

,20

01,

com

posi

teof

othe

rra

tings

)Su

perv

isor

-rat

edsu

cces

s(a

nnua

lpe

rfor

man

cepl

usan

nual

pote

ntia

l).2

7B

Jenn

ings

&Pa

lmer

(200

7)40

360-

degr

eeG

enos

Em

otio

nal

Inte

llige

nce

Inve

ntor

y(G

igna

c,20

10)

Obj

ectiv

epe

rfor

man

ce.4

3B

Kos

tman

(200

4)14

7B

edw

ell

Em

otio

nal

Judg

men

tIn

vent

ory

(Bed

wel

l,20

02)

Supe

rvis

or-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.31

A,

C

Lii

&W

ong

(200

8)15

2E

mot

iona

lIn

telli

genc

eQ

uotie

ntIn

vent

ory

(bas

edon

Salo

vey

&M

ayer

,19

90)

Self

-rat

edov

erse

aad

just

men

t.1

8B

Perl

ini

&H

alve

rson

(200

6)79

EQ

-i(B

ar-O

n,19

97)

Hoc

key

play

erpe

rfor

man

ce

.16

BPr

ati

(200

4)20

9Sc

hutte

etal

.(1

998)

Supe

rvis

or-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.15

CR

ozel

l,Pe

ttijo

h,&

Park

er(2

004)

103

Schu

tteet

al.

(199

8)Se

lf-r

ated

sale

spe

rfor

man

ce.2

0B

Sard

o(2

005)

——

——

BSc

hum

ache

r(2

005)

35E

CI-

U(B

oyat

zis

&Sa

la,

2004

)Su

perv

isor

-rat

edpe

rfor

man

ce.3

5A

,C

(tab

leco

ntin

ues)

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


Tab

le1

(con

tinu

ed) Stud

ySa

mpl

esi

zeE

IM

easu

rePe

rfor

man

cem

easu

reE

ffec

tsi

zeM

eta-

anal

ysis

a

Sem

adar

,R

obin

s,&

Ferr

is(2

006)

136

SUE

IT(P

alm

er&

Stou

gh,

2001

)Su

perv

isor

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.2

5A

,C

Serg

io(2

001)

134

EC

I(S

ala,

2002

)Su

perv

isor

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce�

2�

34.2

7B

Slas

ki&

Car

twri

ght

(200

2)22

4E

Q-i

(Bar

-On,

1997

)Su

perv

isor

-rat

edm

anag

emen

tpe

rfor

man

ce.2

2C

Ston

e,Pa

rker

,&

Woo

d(2

005)

383

EQ

-i(B

ar-O

n,19

97)

Supe

rvis

or-r

ated

task

-ori

ente

dle

ader

ship

abili

ties

.14

B,

C

Tom

bs(2

005)

60E

Q-i

(Bar

-On,

1997

)O

bjec

tive

perf

orm

ance

.28

BV

ieir

a(2

008)

145

Lea

ders

hip

com

pete

ncy

inve

ntor

yde

sign

edto

mea

sure

Gol

eman

’s(1

995)

EI

com

pete

ncie

s

Supe

rvis

or-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.0

7C

M.

B.

Wu

(200

8)36

EQ

-i(B

ar-O

n,19

97O

vera

llse

lf-r

ated

resi

dent

advi

sor

perf

orm

ance

.35

B

Ziz

zi,

Dea

ner,

&H

irsc

hhor

n(2

003)

21pi

tche

rsSc

hutte

etal

.(1

998)

Obj

ectiv

eba

seba

llpe

rfor

man

ce.3

4B

40hi

tters

.01

BA

bilit

yE

Ian

djo

bpe

rfor

man

ceA

shka

nasy

&D

asbo

roug

h(2

003)

119

MSC

EIT

(May

eret

al.,

2002

)O

vera

llco

urse

asse

ssm

ent

.20

BB

lickl

eet

al.

(200

9)21

0T

EM

INT

(Sch

mid

t-A

tzer

t&

Büh

ner,

2002

)Su

perv

isor

-rat

edov

eral

lpe

rfor

man

ce.1

5C

Bry

ant

(200

5)62

MSC

EIT

(May

er&

Salo

vey,

1997

)O

bjec

tive

sale

spe

rfor

man

ce

.09

BB

yron

(200

7)58

DA

NV

A2

(Now

icki

,20

00)

Supe

rvis

or-r

ated

man

ager

ial

perf

orm

ance

.22

B,

CC

hris

tians

en,

Jano

vics

,&

Sier

s(2

010)

69M

SCE

IT(M

ayer

etal

.,20

00)

Supe

rvis

or-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.21

CC

obêr

o,Pr

imi,

&M

uniz

(200

6)11

9M

SCE

IT(M

ayer

etal

.,20

02)

Supe

rvis

or-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.18

A,

CC

ollin

s(2

002)

52M

SCE

IT(M

ayer

etal

.,20

00)

Mul

tirat

erfe

edba

ckof

exec

utiv

esu

cces

s

.08

BC

ôté

&M

iner

s(2

006)

175

MSC

EIT

(May

eret

al.,

2002

)Su

perv

isor

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.3

2A

,B

,C

Farh

,Se

o,&

Tes

luk

(201

2)21

2M

SCE

IT(M

ayer

etal

.,20

02)

Supe

rvis

or-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.08

CG

olds

mith

(200

824

MSC

EIT

(May

eret

al.,

2002

)Su

perv

isor

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.1

1A

,C

Gra

ves

(199

9)15

0E

KT

(sho

rtve

rsio

nof

ME

IS;

May

er&

Salo

vey,

1997

)Pe

rfor

man

cein

sim

ulat

edac

tiviti

es.1

0A

69M

SCE

IT(M

ayer

etal

.,19

99)

Perf

orm

ance

insi

mul

ated

activ

ities

.24

AH

anna

(200

8)46

MSC

EIT

(May

eret

al.,

2002

)Su

perv

isor

-rat

edre

side

nce

hall

assi

stan

tsjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce

.12

A,C

Her

bst,

Mar

ee,

&Si

band

a(2

006)

138

MSC

EIT

(May

eret

al.,

2002

)T

rans

form

atio

nal

Lea

ders

hip

Prac

tices

.05

BK

err,

Gar

vin,

Hea

ton,

&B

oyle

(200

6)38

MSC

EIT

(May

eret

al.,

2000

)Su

bord

inat

es’

ratin

gof

supe

rvis

ory

lead

ersh

ipef

fect

iven

ess

.39

B

Klu

empe

r(2

006)

66M

SCE

IT(M

ayer

etal

.,20

02)

Supe

rvis

or-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.25

A,

B,

CK

luem

per,

DeG

root

,&

Cho

i(2

013)

102

MSC

EIT

(May

eret

al.,

2002

)Su

perv

isor

-rat

edta

skpe

rfor

man

ce.2

2C

85M

SCE

IT(M

ayer

etal

.,20

02)

Supe

rvis

or-r

ated

task

perf

orm

ance

.22

CL

aw,

Won

g,H

uang

,&

Li

(200

8)10

2M

SCE

IT(M

ayer

etal

.,19

99)

Obj

ectiv

epe

rfor

man

cem

easu

res

.1

3A

Mun

iz&

Prim

i(2

007)

80M

SCE

IT(M

ayer

etal

.,20

02)

Supe

rvis

or-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.0

1A

,CR

oset

e&

Cia

rroc

hi(2

005)

41M

SCE

IT(M

ayer

etal

.,20

02)

Supe

rvis

or-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.20

A,

B,

C

Not

e.In

colu

mn

head

ed“S

ourc

e,”

A�

stud

ies

incl

uded

inJo

seph

&N

ewm

an(2

010b

);B

�st

udie

sin

clud

edin

O’B

oyle

etal

.(2

011)

;C

�st

udie

sin

clud

edin

the

curr

ent

artic

le.

DA

NV

A2

�D

iagn

ostic

Ana

lysi

sof

Non

verb

alA

ccur

acy-

2;E

CI

�E

mot

ion-

Com

pete

nce

Inve

ntor

y;E

CI–

U�

Em

otio

nal

Com

pete

nce

Inve

ntor

y–U

nive

rsity

Ver

sion

;E

KT

�E

mot

ion

Kno

wle

dge

Tes

t;E

Q-i

�E

mot

iona

lQ

uotie

ntIn

vent

ory;

EQ

I�

Em

otio

nal

Quo

tient

Inde

x;E

IQ-G

�E

mot

iona

lIn

telli

genc

eQ

uest

ionn

aire

–Gen

eral

;M

EIS

�M

ultif

acto

rE

mot

iona

lIn

telli

genc

eSc

ale;

MSC

EIT

�M

ayer

-Sal

ovey

-Car

uso

Em

otio

nal

Inte

llige

nce

Tes

t;SU

EIT

�Sw

inbu

rne

Uni

vers

ityE

mot

iona

lIn

telli

genc

eT

est;

TE

MIN

T�

Tes

tof

Em

otio

nal

Inte

llige

nce.

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


lation to which the correlation matrix corresponds—this ap-pears to be a ubiquitous limitation that plagues the vast majorityof studies in organizational research and is not unique tometa-analytic SEM.

Literature Search

In order to estimate the structural models, we compiled a cor-relation matrix based on meta-analytic estimates from 20 pub-lished meta-analytic correlations plus 16 original meta-analyses. Ifmultiple meta-analyses had been published on a particular bivari-ate relationship, we used the most recent (which was also the mostcomprehensive) one. The 16 original meta-analyses included up-dates of the relationships of both mixed EI and ability EI withsupervisor-rated job performance, as well as the relationships ofboth general self-efficacy and self-rated job performance withcognitive ability, personality traits, and EI. Several strategies wereused to locate primary studies included in the original meta-analyses. First, we conducted a literature search in the databasesPsycINFO, ERIC, Social Science Citation Index, Google Scholar,and Dissertation Abstracts International for published and unpub-lished studies, using combinations and variations of the followingkeywords: emotional intelligence, cognitive ability, self-efficacy,and self-rated job performance. Second, we also cross-checked

reference lists from previous meta-analyses and reviews on similartopics as well as studies that cited the original scale developmentarticles for general/generalized self-efficacy (Chen et al., 2001;Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002; Judge, Locke, Durham, &Kluger, 1998; Schwarzer, Bassler, Kwiatek, Schröder, & Zhang,1997; Sherer et al., 1982).

In accordance with our a priori construct definitions andresearch interests, several rules were established for the inclu-sion of primary studies. First, the analysis was limited to adultparticipants (ages 16 –70 years, excluding young adolescentsand institutionalized populations). Second, any studies that didnot operationalize general self-efficacy in a manner consistentwith the definition of general self-efficacy from Sherer et al.(1982), as a trait-like construct that represents global masteryexpectancies, were excluded (e.g., measures of task-specific orstate self-efficacy were excluded, mimicking the procedures ofJudge & Bono, 2001). Composite measures of confidence inperforming tasks across several, specific domains (e.g., Ber-nard, Hutchison, Lavin, & Pennington, 1996), or self-efficacymeasures that were specific to a particular setting (e.g., Jones,1986) were also excluded. In addition, measures that claimed toassess general self-efficacy but appeared to represent anotherconstruct (e.g., the personal mastery measure from Pearlin &

Table 2Results From Original Meta-Analyses

Variable k N r �̂ SD�

95% CI 80% CI

LL UL LL UL

Job performance (supervisor-rated)Mixed EI 15 2,168 .23 .29 .13 .21 .38 .13 .46Ability EI 13 1,287 .17 .20 .03 .13 .26 .15 .24General self-efficacy 13 2,703 .10 .13 .00 .09 .18 .13 .13

Self-rated job performanceMixed EI 10 1,601 .36 .41 .09 .34 .49 .29 .54Ability EI 3 219 .00 .00 .09 .19 .20 .12 .12Conscientiousness 8 2,621 .25 .31 .09 .23 .39 .19 .43Extraversion 8 2,621 .19 .23 .06 .16 .29 .14 .31Emotional Stability 8 2,621 .22 .26 .13 .16 .37 .09 .43Cognitive ability 4 3,298 .03 .04 .05 .03 .10 .02 .10General self-efficacy 3 686 .41 .51 .11 .36 .66 .37 .65

General self-efficacyMixed EI 9 1,847 .37 .45 .13 .35 .54 .28 .61Ability EI 5 709 .30 .36 .40 .01 .72 .15 .87Conscientiousness 30 10,027 .45 .54 .26 .44 .63 .21 .87Extraversion 23 8,479 .42 .51 .20 .42 .59 .25 .76Emotional Stability 46 12,510 .48 .56 .12 .52 .59 .40 .71Cognitive ability 13 4,085 .07 .09 .06 .04 .13 .01 .16

Note. k � number of effect sizes in the meta-analysis; N � total sample size in the meta-analysis; r � sample-size weighted mean correlation; �̂ �correlation corrected for attenuation in predictor and criterion; SD� � standard deviation of corrected correlation; mixed emotional intelligence (EI) andability EI correlations with supervisor-rated job performance are also corrected for range restriction; 95% CI � 95% confidence interval; 80% CI � 80%credibility interval; LL � lower limit; UL � upper limit.

Figure 4. Mediation model for objective results criteria. Estimates were standardized: N � 1,846, �2(1) � 7.69(p � .05), root-mean-square error of approximation � .060, comparative fit index � .99, Tucker–Lewis Index �.96, standardized root-mean-square residual � .02. � p � .05. EI � emotional intelligence.

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


Schooler, 1978) were also excluded. The only exception to thisinclusion rule was in regard to self-efficacy’s correlation withability EI. Because there were no general self-efficacy primarystudies available to estimate this effect, we used primary studiesof specific self-efficacy for this particular cell in the correlationmatrix. Third, with regard to job performance measures, weinvoked a set of conservative standards: (a) only the job per-formance of employed individuals was included; performanceof specific cognitive or noncognitive tasks, lab experiments,assessment center ratings, and training performance were ex-cluded; (b) student academic performance and grade pointaverages (GPAs) were excluded; (c) studies measuring onlycontextual performance or organizational citizenship behaviorwere excluded; and (d) studies that provided objective measuresor third-party evaluations of job performance were excludedbecause, to be consistent with other meta-analyses in our cor-relation matrix, we were only interested in supervisor ratings ofjob performance. Primary studies of self-rated job performancewere selected according to the same inclusion rules, with oneexception. In order to obtain an adequate sample size for therelationships between personality/cognitive ability and self-rated job performance, we chose to include two studies (Os-wald, Schmitt, Kim, Ramsay, & Gillespie, 2004; Schmitt et al.,2007) that used behaviorally anchored rating scales across 12dimensions of college performance (these studies were includedin effect size estimates for the relationships between personal-ity/cognitive ability and self-rated performance). Results withand without these two studies were very similar; removing thesestudies did not change the relationships by more than .03.Fourth, any performance-based (e.g., multiple-choice/right–wrong) measure of EI based on Salovey and Mayer’s (1990)ability model was coded as ability EI, and all self-report mea-sures of EI (excluding self-report measures of ability EI; e.g.,Wong & Law, 2002) were coded as measures of mixed EI.(Note: We classified the Schutte et al. [1998] measure of EI as aself-report mixed EI measure; although the original measure is pur-portedly based on Salovey and Mayer’s [1990] model, the dimensionsof this self-report scale—empathy, self-management of emotions,utilization of emotions, and management of others’ emotions [Chan,2003]—do not align with the dimensions of Salovey and Mayer’sability EI model, and the items on the scale appear to capture contentmuch broader than ability EI [e.g., the item “I expect that I will dowell on most things I try” appears to measure general self-efficacy]).Fifth, studies that used student GPA or ACT scores to representcognitive ability were excluded. We also deleted studies that did notmeasure Emotional Stability directly but instead measured a relatedtrait such as the Sensitivity facet from the California PersonalityInventory (e.g., Baker, 2007) or negative affectivity. Finally, studiesthat did not provide enough information to calculate the hypothesizedcorrelations or did not provide sample sizes were excluded. Allprimary studies that were identified as part of the original search, butsubsequently excluded for any of the above reasons, are listed inAppendix A.

Data Analysis

Following Hunter and Schmidt (2004), we calculated sample-size-weighted mean correlations, with all effect sizes corrected forunreliability in both the predictor and criterion. For longitudinalT

able

3C

orre

lati

onT

able

Fro

mM

eta-

Ana

lyti

cR

esul

ts

Var

iabl

e1

23

45

67

8

1.M

ixed

emot

iona

lin

telli

genc

e—

2.A

bilit

yem

otio

nal

inte

llige

nce

.26a

(10/

1572

)—

3.C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.38a

(31/

5591

).1

3a(2

1/41

55)

—4.

Ext

rave

rsio

n.4

6a(3

0/55

52)

.18a

(23/

4269

).0

0c(6

32/6

8300

1)—

5.E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.5

3a(3

0/53

86)

.20a

(22/

4401

).2

6c(5

87/4

9029

6).1

9c(7

10/4

4044

0)—

6.C

ogni

tive

abili

ty.1

1a(1

9/28

80)

.25a

(28/

5538

)

.04d

(56/

1542

9).0

2d(6

1/21

602)

.09d

(61/

2140

4)—

7.G

ener

alse

lf-e

ffic

acy

.45b

(9/1

847)

.36b

(5/7

09)

.54b

(30/

1002

7).5

1b(2

3/84

79)

.56b

(46/

1251

0).0

9b(1

3/40

85)

—8.

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.4

1b(1

0/16

02)

.00b

(3/2

19)

.31b

(8/2

621)

.23b

(8/2

621)

.26b

(8/2

621)

.04b

(4/3

298)

.51b

(3/6

86)

—9.

Job

perf

orm

ance

(sup

ervi

sor-

rate

d).2

9b(1

5/21

68)

.20b

(13/

1287

).2

1e(6

4/12

434)

.09e

(56/

9664

).1

1e(5

3/91

84)

.44f

(425

/321

24)

.13b

(13/

2703

).3

4g(1

15/3

7752

)

Not

e.E

ach

cell

cont

ains

the

corr

elat

ion

corr

ecte

dfo

rat

tenu

atio

nin

the

pred

icto

ran

dcr

iteri

on,f

ollo

wed

byk

num

ber

ofef

fect

size

san

dN

sam

ple

size

.Cor

rela

tions

ofsu

perv

isor

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

cew

ithm

ixed

emot

iona

lin

telli

genc

e(E

I),

abili

tyE

I,B

igFi

vetr

aits

,an

dco

gniti

veab

ility

wer

eal

soco

rrec

ted

for

rang

ere

stri

ctio

n.a

Jose

ph&

New

man

(201

0b).

bO

rigi

nal

met

a-an

alys

esfr

omcu

rren

tst

udy.

cO

nes

(199

3).

dJu

dge,

Jack

son,

Shaw

,Sc

ott,

&R

ich

(200

7).

eJo

seph

&N

ewm

an(2

010b

),up

date

dfr

omH

urtz

&D

onov

an(2

000)

.fH

unte

r&

Hun

ter

(198

4;se

eJo

seph

&N

ewm

an,

2010

b,p.

63).

gH

eide

mei

er&

Mos

er(2

009)

.

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


studies that contained multiple measurements, only the effect sizefrom the initial measure was kept. For a sample with multiple,facet-level effect sizes of one relationship, we computed a com-posite correlation according to the formula provided by Nunnally(1978), or if inadequate information was available to calculate acomposite, we calculated a simple average. In cases where noreliability information was provided, we adopted estimates fromViswesvaran and Ones (2000, p. 231) for reliability of Big Fivepersonality or imputed the average reliability from all availablestudies (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004) for non–Big Five measures. Forestimating the reliability of single-item measures of job perfor-mance, we followed previous approaches (McKay & McDaniel,2006; Roth, Huffcutt, & Bobko, 2003) using the Spearman–Brownformula to downwardly correct the average reliability reportedacross other primary studies. Following Hunter and Schmidt(2004), when the standard deviation of the population estimates (�)was smaller than zero, we used zero instead. Also, to maintainconsistency with other job performance meta-analyses in Table 3,we based range restriction corrections for the relationships be-tween ability EI/mixed EI and supervisor-rated job performanceupon average ratios of restricted to unrestricted standard deviations(i.e., .95 for mixed EI and .99 for ability EI, which suggest rangerestriction was very minor for the studies included in the current EImeta-analyses). Duval and Tweedie (2000) trim-and-fill publica-tion bias analyses were also conducted (no bias was found; resultsare available upon request).

Based upon the meta-analytic correlation matrix in Table 3, wethen conducted multiple regression analyses, with mixed EI as thedependent variable, to test the extent to which mixed EI measuresare sampling the content domains of Conscientiousness, Extraver-sion, Emotional Stability, ability EI, cognitive ability, and self-rated qualities. (We also included ability EI as a second dependentvariable, in response to a reviewer comment.) We also conductedrelative importance analyses (J. W. Johnson, 2000; J. W. Johnson& LeBreton, 2004) to determine which constructs (e.g., Consci-entiousness, Extraversion, Emotional Stability, ability EI, cogni-tive ability, general self-efficacy, or self-rated job performance)contributed the most variance to mixed EI.

Next, we estimated three structural equation models to test theeffects of the KSAOs (common covariates) of mixed EI and jobperformance (see Figures 1, 2, and 3; note that Figure 2, Model B,is mathematically equivalent to estimating two multiple regressionmodels in this case). Model A is our hypothesized heterogeneousdomain sampling model (no-mediation model; Figure 1, Model A),which specifies no path from mixed EI to supervisor ratings of jobperformance. Model B is a fully saturated model (partial-mediation model; Figure 2, Model B) in which Conscientiousness,Extraversion, Emotional Stability, ability EI, cognitive ability, andself-rated qualities predict mixed EI and supervisor ratings of jobperformance, and mixed EI also incrementally predicts job perfor-mance. Model C is a fully-mediated model (Figure 3, Model C)that is similar to Model B, except the direct effects of all sevenKSAOs are removed so that mixed EI transmits all the KSAOeffects onto supervisor ratings of job performance. Finally, thefourth model estimates a mediation model from mixed EI tosupervisor ratings of job performance, which in turn lead toobjective results criteria (Figure 4).

Results

Results of the original meta-analyses conducted in the current studyare presented in Table 2 (primary studies included in these originalmeta-analyses are presented in Table 4). Regarding the relationshipbetween mixed EI and job performance, several major adjustmentswere made to improve upon the statistical validity and constructvalidity of previous meta-analyses. In particular, seven primary stud-ies were added beyond Joseph and Newman’s (2010b) meta-analysis,11 primary studies were added beyond O’Boyle et al.’s (2011) meta-analysis, and 24 primary studies were removed from O’Boyle et al.’s(2011) analysis (see list of primary studies in Table 1). This updateand refinement resulted in a corrected mean mixed EI-job perfor-mance correlation of .29, which is considerably smaller than whatJoseph and Newman (2010b) reported (�̂ � .47), and closer to theestimate reported by O’Boyle et al. (2011; �̂ � .28). The relationshipbetween ability EI and job performance was also updated, with amean corrected correlation of .20. This is larger than the estimate fromJoseph and Newman (2010b; �̂ � .18) but smaller than the O’Boyleet al. (2011) estimate (�̂ � .24). The estimated population correlationbetween general self-efficacy and job performance was only .13,which is smaller than that reported in a previous meta-analysis (Judge& Bono, 2001, �̂ � .23), although this newer estimate is based onmore than twice as much data.

For self-rated job performance, there was a high correlation withgeneral self-efficacy (�̂ � .51) and mixed EI (�̂ � .41), but near-zerorelationships with both cognitive ability (�̂ � .04) and ability EI (�̂ �.004). With regard to general self-efficacy, results showed that it ishighly correlated with all three personality traits: �̂ � .56 withEmotional Stability, �̂ � .54 with Conscientiousness, and �̂ � .51with Extraversion, and it strongly relates to mixed EI (�̂ � .45),whereas it has only a small relationship with cognitive ability (�̂ �.09).

After combining the original meta-analyses we have describedabove with the 20 previously published meta-analyses, we createdthe final meta-analytic correlation matrix, which we present inTable 3. On the basis of this correlation matrix, we estimated themultiple regression models presented in Table 5. Results indicate62% of the variance in mixed EI is captured by Conscientiousness,Extraversion, Emotional Stability, ability EI, cognitive ability,general self-efficacy, and self-rated job performance, suggestingthat a majority of the mix in mixed EI covers content fromwell-established psychological concepts (in contrast, only 23% ofthe variance in ability EI is captured by these constructs). As anaside, we note that general self-efficacy has a strong negativeregression coefficient for mixed EI (and for job performance, aswe show later), due to a suppression effect (Cohen, Cohen, West,& Aiken, 2003; Tzelgov & Henik, 1991) coming from high mul-ticollinearity of general self-efficacy with the three Big Five fac-tors and self-rated job performance. Results from the relativeimportance analysis, which partitions R2 and assigns percentagesof R2 contributed by each predictor (displayed in Table 6), indicatethat the most important predictors of mixed EI, in order, areEmotional Stability (29.5%), Extraversion (26.5%), Conscien-tiousness (16.1%), self-rated performance (14.2%), general self-efficacy (6.8%), and ability EI (5.5%). Thus, the answer to ourresearch question—What proportion of the variance in mixed EI isaccounted for by Conscientiousness, Extraversion, general self-efficacy, self-rated job performance, ability EI, Emotional stability,

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


Tab

le4

Pri

mar

ySt

udie

sIn

clud

edin

the

16O

rigi

nal

Met

a-A

naly

ses

Stud

yN

Pred

icto

rm

easu

rer x

xC

rite

rion

mea

sure

r yy

r

Ade

yem

o&

Ogu

nyem

i(2

005)

300

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

2M

ixed

EI

.76

.32

Bes

t(2

002)

819

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

5E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.9

2.5

6B

ledo

w&

Fres

e(2

009)

77G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.79

Job

perf

orm

ance

(sup

ervi

sor-

rate

d).9

6.2

8B

lickl

eet

al.

(200

9)21

0A

bilit

yE

I.8

1Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.84

.15

Boy

ar&

Mos

ley

(200

7)12

3G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.88

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.79

.22

Boy

ce,

Zac

caro

,&

Wis

ecar

ver

(201

0)32

7G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.95

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.8

5.4

9B

oyce

,Z

acca

ro,

&W

isec

arve

r(2

010)

327

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.9

5C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

.88

.0

5R

.F.

Bro

wn

&Sc

hutte

(200

6)16

7G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.86

Mix

edE

I.8

5.5

8T

.J.

Bro

wn,

Mow

en,

Don

avan

,&

Lic

ata

(200

2)24

9C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.73

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.8

2.1

8T

.J.

Bro

wn,

Mow

en,

Don

avan

,&

Lic

ata

(200

2)24

9E

xtra

vers

ion

.86

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.8

2.1

2T

.J.

Bro

wn,

Mow

en,

Don

avan

,&

Lic

ata

(200

2)24

9E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.8

8Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.82

.14

Bry

an(2

007)

57G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.67

Mix

edE

I.9

5.5

5B

urke

,M

atth

iese

n,&

Palle

sen

(200

6)46

0G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.85

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.7

1.2

5B

urke

,M

atth

iese

n,&

Palle

sen

(200

6)46

0G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.85

Ext

rave

rsio

n.7

0.3

6B

urke

,M

atth

iese

n,&

Palle

sen

(200

6)46

0G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.85

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.82

.43

Byr

ne(2

003)

325

Mix

edE

I.9

2Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.73

.27

Byr

on(2

007)

58A

bilit

yE

I.7

0Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.91

.22

Byr

on,

Ter

rano

va,

&N

owic

ki(2

007)

109

Abi

lity

EI

.77

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.8

0.1

2B

yron

,T

erra

nova

,&

Now

icki

(200

7)51

Abi

lity

EI

.76

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.8

0

.23

Car

mel

i(2

003)

98M

ixed

EI

.90

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.8

7.3

2C

arm

eli

&Jo

sman

(200

6)21

5M

ixed

EI

.83

Job

perf

orm

ance

(sup

ervi

sor-

rate

d).8

5.4

7C

han

(200

4)15

8G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.80

Mix

edE

I.6

1.3

3C

hang

(200

8)87

4C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.78

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.8

2.2

0C

hang

(200

8)87

4E

xtra

vers

ion

.78

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.8

2.1

9C

hang

(200

8)87

4E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.7

8Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.82

.35

G.

Che

n,G

ully

,&

Ede

n(2

004)

267

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

6C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.82

.29

G.

Che

n,G

ully

,&

Ede

n(2

004)

267

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

6E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.8

2.4

1G

.C

hen,

Gul

ly,

&E

den

(200

4)14

8G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.82

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.7

3.4

6G

.C

hen,

Gul

ly,

&E

den

(200

4)14

8G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.82

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.69

.42

G.

Che

n,G

ully

,W

hite

man

,&

Kilc

ulle

n(2

000)

158

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

8C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

.90

.05

G.

Che

n,G

ully

,W

hite

man

,&

Kilc

ulle

n(2

000)

127

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

6C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

.90

.08

G.

Che

n&

Klim

oski

(200

3)70

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

8Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.99

.0

1S.

X.

Che

n&

Car

ey(2

009)

113

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.9

1C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.83

.27

S.X

.C

hen

&C

arey

(200

9)11

3G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.91

Ext

rave

rsio

n.7

6.4

1S.

X.

Che

n&

Car

ey(2

009)

113

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.9

1E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.8

6.3

7C

hris

tians

en,

Jano

vics

,&

Sier

s(2

010)

69A

bilit

yE

I.7

8Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.92

.21

Chu

(200

7)66

6G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.84

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.7

8.4

7C

hu(2

007)

666

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

4E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.7

8.3

0C

lem

mon

s(2

008)

231

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

6C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.78

.34

Cle

mm

ons

(200

8)23

1G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.86

Ext

rave

rsio

n.7

8.2

8C

lem

mon

s(2

008)

231

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

6E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.7

8.2

9C

obêr

o,Pr

imi

&M

uniz

(200

6)11

9A

bilit

yE

I.7

8Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.89

.18

Con

vers

e,St

einh

ause

r,&

Path

ak(2

010)

90G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.84

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.7

8.3

1C

ôté

&M

iner

s(2

006)

175

Abi

lity

EI

.92

Job

perf

orm

ance

(sup

ervi

sor-

rate

d).9

1.3

2D

eRue

&M

orge

son

(200

7)14

3G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.92

Job

perf

orm

ance

(sup

ervi

sor-

rate

d).9

5.1

3D

evon

ish

&G

reen

idge

(201

0)17

5M

ixed

EI

.85

Job

perf

orm

ance

(sup

ervi

sor-

rate

d).9

2

.03

Dul

ewic

z,H

iggs

&Sl

aski

(200

3)53

Mix

edE

I.7

7Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.58

.32

Dur

ánet

al.

(200

6)37

3G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.86

Mix

edE

I.8

9.2

5

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


Tab

le4

(con

tinu

ed)

Stud

yN

Pred

icto

rm

easu

rer x

xC

rite

rion

mea

sure

r yy

r

Ebs

trup

,E

plov

,Pi

sing

er,

&Jo

rgen

sen

(201

1)32

15G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.90

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.7

9.4

8E

bstr

up,

Epl

ov,

Pisi

nger

,&

Jorg

ense

n(2

011)

3215

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.9

0E

xtra

vers

ion

.82

.51

Ebs

trup

,E

plov

,Pi

sing

er,

&Jo

rgen

sen

(201

1)32

15G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.90

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.85

.51

Eis

sa&

Kha

lifa

(200

8)17

8G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.82

Mix

edE

I.9

1.3

2E

lfen

bein

,C

urha

n,E

isen

kraf

t,Sh

irak

o,&

Bac

caro

(200

8)14

9N

egot

iatio

nSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.80

Abi

lity

EI

.88

.0

3E

rez

&Ju

dge

(200

1)12

4G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.78

Job

perf

orm

ance

(sup

ervi

sor-

rate

d).6

1.2

2E

rez

&Ju

dge

(200

1)12

4G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.78

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.8

0.5

2E

rez

&Ju

dge

(200

1)12

4G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.78

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.79

.69

Ere

z&

Judg

e(2

001)

473

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.9

0E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.8

8.3

3E

rez

&Ju

dge

(200

1)11

2G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.80

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.89

.47

Fan,

Men

g,B

illin

gs,

Litc

hfie

ld,

&K

apla

ng(2

008)

255

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

8C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

.78

.10

Farh

,Se

o,&

Tes

luk

(201

2)21

2A

bilit

yE

I.8

8Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.88

.08

Feng

,L

u,&

Xia

o(2

008)

513

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

8Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.78

.09

Fort

unat

o&

Gol

dbla

tt(2

006)

268

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.9

0C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.84

.54

Foti

&H

auen

stei

n(2

007)

81G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.85

Cog

nitiv

eA

bilit

y.9

0.1

2Fr

ese

etal

.(2

007)

123

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

8C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

.69

.31

Fres

eet

al.

(200

7)80

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.7

9C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

.67

.02

Fulle

ret

al.

(201

1)40

5G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.89

Ext

rave

rsio

n.8

1.2

4G

abel

,D

olan

,&

Cer

din

(200

5)59

Mix

edE

I.7

7Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.86

.06

Gar

cía-

lzqu

ierd

o,G

arcí

a-lz

quie

rdo,

&R

amos

-Vill

agra

sa(2

007)

127

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

1M

ixed

EI

.90

.45

Gar

dner

&Pi

erce

(199

8)14

5G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.86

Job

perf

orm

ance

(sup

ervi

sor-

rate

d).9

4.1

1G

ardn

er&

Pier

ce(2

010)

230

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.9

3E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.8

1.1

7G

olds

mith

(200

8)24

Mix

edE

I.7

8Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.79

.20

Gol

dsm

ith(2

008)

24A

bilit

yE

I.6

3Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.88

.11

Had

er(2

007)

129

Mix

edE

I.6

8Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.58

.29

Had

ley

(200

3)15

1G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.84

Ext

rave

rsio

n.7

8.1

4H

anna

(200

8)46

Mix

edE

I.8

2Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.83

.21

Han

na(2

008)

46A

bilit

yE

I.8

7Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.83

.1

2H

egge

stad

&M

orri

son

(200

8)24

0So

cial

Self

-Eff

icac

y.7

4A

bilit

yE

I.8

8.1

0D

.M

.H

iggi

ns(2

009)

77C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

.83

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.9

7.3

6D

.M

.H

iggi

ns,

Pete

rson

,Pi

hl,

&L

ee(2

007)

77C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.81

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.9

7.2

8D

.M

.H

iggi

ns,

Pete

rson

,Pi

hl,

&L

ee(2

007)

77E

xtra

vers

ion

.88

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.9

7.2

8D

.M

.H

iggi

ns,

Pete

rson

,Pi

hl,

&L

ee(2

007)

77E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.8

4Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.97

.20

H.

R.

Hig

gins

(200

1)17

5G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.82

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.8

4.5

6H

.R

.H

iggi

ns(2

001)

175

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

2E

xtra

vers

ion

.81

.29

H.

R.

Hig

gins

(200

1)17

5G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.82

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.90

.43

R.

E.

John

son,

Ros

en&

Dju

rdje

vic

(201

1)12

9G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.84

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.84

.59

R.

E.

John

son,

Ros

en&

Dju

rdje

vic

(201

1)13

8G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.82

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.85

.52

R.

E.

John

son,

Ros

en&

Dju

rdje

vic

(201

1)22

3G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.83

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.89

.51

R.

E.

John

son,

Ros

en&

Dju

rdje

vic

(201

1)17

0G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.85

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.86

.64

R.

E.

John

son,

Ros

en&

Dju

rdje

vic

(201

1)14

0G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.82

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.84

.53

R.

E.

John

son,

Ros

en&

Dju

rdje

vic

(201

1)13

2G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.84

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.87

.48

R.

E.

John

son,

Ros

en&

Dju

rdje

vic

(201

1)13

5G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.84

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.88

.27

Judg

e,B

ono,

Ere

z,&

Loc

ke(2

005)

183

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

5E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.8

9.4

9Ju

dge,

Bon

o,&

Loc

ke(2

002)

348

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

6E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.9

0.6

0Ju

dge,

Ere

z,B

ono,

&T

hore

sen

(200

2)70

2G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.94

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.7

4.3

2Ju

dge,

Ere

z,B

ono,

&T

hore

sen

(200

2)70

2G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.94

Ext

rave

rsio

n.7

2.2

9Ju

dge,

Ere

z,B

ono,

&T

hore

sen

(200

2)27

0G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.88

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.9

1.4

9Ju

dge,

Ere

z,B

ono,

&T

hore

sen

(200

2)27

0G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.88

Ext

rave

rsio

n.8

8.5

3(t

able

cont

inue

s)

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


Tab

le4

(con

tinu

ed)

Stud

yN

Pred

icto

rm

easu

rer x

xC

rite

rion

mea

sure

r yy

r

Judg

e,E

rez,

Bon

o,&

Tho

rese

n(2

002)

124

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

8C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.90

.46

Judg

e,E

rez,

Bon

o,&

Tho

rese

n(2

002)

124

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

8E

xtra

vers

ion

.75

.35

Judg

e,E

rez,

Bon

o,&

Tho

rese

n(2

002)

72G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.87

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.9

0.1

2Ju

dge,

Ere

z,B

ono,

&T

hore

sen

(200

2)72

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

7E

xtra

vers

ion

.75

.29

Judg

e,E

rez,

Bon

o,&

Tho

rese

n(2

002)

440

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

0C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.84

.58

Judg

e,E

rez,

Bon

o,&

Tho

rese

n(2

002)

440

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

0E

xtra

vers

ion

.79

.48

Judg

e,E

rez,

Bon

o,&

Tho

rese

n(2

002)

277

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

5C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.87

.45

Judg

e,E

rez,

Bon

o,&

Tho

rese

n(2

002)

277

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

5E

xtra

vers

ion

.78

.42

Judg

e,L

ePin

e,&

Ric

h(2

006)

131

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.8

0Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.83

.60

Judg

e,L

ePin

e,&

Ric

h(2

006)

131

Ext

rave

rsio

n.8

5Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.83

.22

Judg

e,L

ePin

e,&

Ric

h(2

006)

131

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.81

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.8

3.2

1Ju

dge,

Loc

ke,

Dur

ham

,&

Klu

ger

(199

8)16

4G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.90

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.93

.67

Judg

e,L

ocke

,D

urha

m,

&K

luge

r(1

998)

122

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

3E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.8

6.4

9Ju

dge,

Loc

ke,

Dur

ham

,&

Klu

ger

(199

8)12

2G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.81

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.85

.33

Judg

e,T

hore

sen,

Puci

k,&

Wel

bour

ne(1

999)

514

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.7

5Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.61

.08

Kir

k,Sc

hutte

,&

Hin

e(2

008)

92E

mot

iona

lSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.85

Abi

lity

EI

.91

.34

Klu

empe

r(2

006)

66A

bilit

yE

I.7

7Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.90

.25

Klu

empe

r,D

eGro

ot,

&C

hoi

(201

3)10

2A

bilit

yE

I.7

8Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.86

.22

Klu

empe

r,D

eGro

ot,

&C

hoi

(201

3)85

Abi

lity

EI

.78

Job

perf

orm

ance

(sup

ervi

sor-

rate

d).9

0.2

2K

ostm

an(2

004)

147

Mix

edE

I.7

9Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.80

.31

Lad

ebo

&A

wot

unde

(200

7)15

6G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.81

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.7

6.2

2L

ange

ndör

fer

(200

8)12

2G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.88

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.8

5.3

5L

ange

ndör

fer

(200

8)12

2G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.88

Ext

rave

rsio

n.8

0.4

6L

ange

ndör

fer

(200

8)12

2G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.88

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.85

.67

Law

(200

3)88

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

3E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.8

5.2

1L

ee,

Stet

tler,

&A

nton

akis

(201

1)46

0G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.84

Job

perf

orm

ance

(sup

ervi

sor-

rate

d).8

1.1

2L

ee,

Stet

tler,

&A

nton

akis

(201

1)46

0G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.84

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.7

8.4

5L

ee,

Stet

tler,

&A

nton

akis

(201

1)46

0G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.84

Ext

rave

rsio

n.7

8.3

9L

ee,

Stet

tler,

&A

nton

akis

(201

1)46

0G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.84

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.78

.55

Lee

,St

ettle

r,&

Ant

onak

is(2

011)

460

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

4C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

.90

.1L

indl

ey(2

001)

301

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

7M

ixed

EI

.90

.54

Lu,

Cha

ng,

&L

ai(2

011)

310

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.9

3Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.81

.48

Lu,

Cha

ng,

&L

ai(2

011)

220

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.7

7Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.74

.46

Lut

hans

,A

volio

,A

vey,

&N

orm

an(2

007)

404

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.7

8Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.82

.20

Lut

hans

,A

volio

,A

vey,

&N

orm

an(2

007)

404

Ext

rave

rsio

n.7

8Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.82

.05

Lut

hans

,A

volio

,A

vey,

&N

orm

an(2

007)

404

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.78

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.8

2.0

1M

cElr

oy,

Hen

dric

kson

,T

owns

end,

&D

eMar

ie(2

007)

153

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

0C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.90

.59

McE

lroy

,H

endr

icks

on,

Tow

nsen

d,&

DeM

arie

(200

7)15

3G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.80

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.93

.52

McE

lroy

,H

endr

icks

on,

Tow

nsen

d,&

DeM

arie

(200

7)15

3G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.80

Ext

rave

rsio

n.9

1.3

6M

cKin

ney

(200

3)30

6G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.88

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.91

.46

McK

inne

y(2

003)

114

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

8E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.9

1.3

9M

cNat

t&

Judg

e(2

004)

57G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.84

Job

perf

orm

ance

(sup

ervi

sor-

rate

d).9

3

.06

Mei

er,

Sem

mer

,E

lfer

ing,

&Ja

cobs

hage

n(2

008)

96G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.80

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.77

.51

Mir

sale

h,R

ezai

,K

ivi,

&G

horb

ani

(201

0)12

7G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.85

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.6

1.5

4M

irsa

leh,

Rez

ai,

Kiv

i,&

Gho

rban

i(2

010)

127

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

5E

xtra

vers

ion

.76

.39

Mir

sale

h,R

ezai

,K

ivi,

&G

horb

ani

(201

0)12

7G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.85

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.79

.52

Mun

iz&

Prim

i(2

007)

80A

bilit

yE

I.7

8Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.81

.0

1O

h&

Ber

ry(2

009)

239

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.9

2Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.88

.27

Oh

&B

erry

(200

9)23

9E

xtra

vers

ion

.95

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.8

8.3

2O

h&

Ber

ry(2

009)

239

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.93

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.8

8.2

8

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


Tab

le4

(con

tinu

ed)

Stud

yN

Pred

icto

rm

easu

rer x

xC

rite

rion

mea

sure

r yy

r

Oke

ch(2

004)

180

Tea

chin

gSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.77

Abi

lity

EI

.90

.87

Ono

,Sa

chau

,D

eal,

Eng

lert

,&

Tay

lor

(201

1)38

Mix

edE

I.7

9Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.95

.45

Ore

g(2

003)

134

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.9

3C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.84

.36

Ore

g(2

003)

134

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.9

3E

xtra

vers

ion

.87

.49

Ore

g(2

003)

134

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.9

3E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.7

9.2

1O

swal

det

al.

(200

4)61

1C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.83

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.8

0.3

0O

swal

det

al.

(200

4)61

1E

xtra

vers

ion

.88

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.8

0.2

4O

swal

det

al.

(200

4)61

1E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.8

4Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.80

.15

Osw

ald

etal

.(2

004)

611

Cog

nitiv

eA

bilit

y.8

3Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.80

.0

1O

wen

s(2

009)

104

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

4C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.78

.40

Ow

ens

(200

9)10

3G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.84

Cog

nitiv

eA

bilit

y.9

0.2

9Pa

rker

(200

7)58

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.6

9Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.61

.05

Petr

ides

&Fu

rnha

m(2

006)

87M

ixed

EI

.84

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.8

0.3

3Pe

trid

es&

Furn

ham

(200

6)80

Mix

edE

I.8

9Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.80

.03

Picc

olo,

Judg

e,T

akah

ashi

,W

atan

abe,

&L

ocke

(200

5)27

1G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.80

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.86

.41

Pier

ro(1

997)

98G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.84

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.8

6.5

8Pi

erro

(199

7)98

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

4E

xtra

vers

ion

.82

.48

Pier

ro(1

997)

98G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.84

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.79

.20

Plat

t(2

010)

97G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.84

Job

perf

orm

ance

(sup

ervi

sor-

rate

d).9

8

.10

Prat

i(2

004)

209

Mix

edE

I.8

9Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.94

.15

Ram

assi

ni(2

000)

204

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

4E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.7

8.4

9R

eece

(200

7)15

0G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.96

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.91

.55

Rob

inso

n(2

009)

160

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.7

8C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

.90

.08

Rod

eet

al.

(200

8)59

Abi

lity

EI

.88

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.8

0

.01

Ros

ete

&C

iarr

ochi

(200

5)41

Abi

lity

EI

.78

Job

perf

orm

ance

(sup

ervi

sor-

rate

d).8

9.2

0R

ozel

l,Pe

ttijo

hn,

&Pa

rker

(200

4)10

3M

ixed

EI

.83

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.8

5.2

0Sc

hend

el(2

010)

48C

ouns

elor

Act

ivity

Self

-E

ffic

acy

.95

Abi

lity

EI

.82

.10

Schi

mtt

etal

.(2

007)

2488

Cog

nitiv

eA

bilit

y.8

3Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.74

.03

Schu

mac

her

(200

5)35

Mix

edE

I.6

8Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.74

.35

Sem

adar

,R

obin

s,&

Ferr

is(2

006

136

Mix

edE

I.9

4Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.92

.25

Sevi

nc(2

001)

69M

ixed

EI

.80

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.8

0.2

0Sh

ahza

d,Sa

rmad

,A

bbas

,&

Kha

n(2

011)

100

Mix

edE

I.8

2Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.73

.43

Sjob

erg,

Litt

orin

,&

Eng

elbe

rg(2

005)

45M

ixed

EI

.76

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.8

0.2

5Sl

aski

&C

artw

righ

t(2

002)

224

Mix

edE

I.7

9Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.80

.22

Smith

&Fo

ti(1

998)

160

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

8C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

.90

.06

Sove

rn(2

008)

206

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.7

3E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.8

9.4

4St

ewar

t,Pa

lmer

,W

ilkin

,&

Ker

rin

(200

8)11

0G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.86

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.8

1.4

1St

ewar

t,Pa

lmer

,W

ilkin

,&

Ker

rin

(200

8)11

0G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.86

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.88

.64

Ston

e,Pa

rker

,&

Woo

d(2

005)

383

Mix

edE

I.7

9Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce(s

uper

viso

r-ra

ted)

.89

.39

Ston

e,Pa

rker

,&

Woo

d(2

005)

412

Mix

edE

I.9

3Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.83

.37

Stro

bel,

Tum

asja

n,&

Spor

rle

(201

1)18

0G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.85

Job

perf

orm

ance

(sup

ervi

sor-

rate

d).7

7.1

5St

robe

l,T

umas

jan,

&Sp

orrl

e(2

011)

180

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

5C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.81

.37

Stro

bel,

Tum

asja

n,&

Spor

rle

(201

1)18

0G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.85

Ext

rave

rsio

n.7

5.4

3St

robe

l,T

umas

jan,

&Sp

orrl

e(2

011)

180

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

5E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.8

6.5

4St

umpp

,M

uck,

Hul

sheg

er,

Judg

e,&

Mai

er(2

010)

199

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

7C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.83

.51

Stum

pp,

Muc

k,H

ulsh

eger

,Ju

dge,

&M

aier

(201

0)19

9G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.87

Ext

rave

rsio

n.8

0.4

5St

umpp

,M

uck,

Hul

sheg

er,

Judg

e,&

Mai

er(2

010)

199

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

7E

mot

iona

lSt

abili

ty.8

2.6

1St

urm

an(2

011)

119

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

4C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.78

.54

Stur

man

(201

1)11

9G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.84

Ext

rave

rsio

n.7

8.3

4(t

able

cont

inue

s)

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


Tab

le4

(con

tinu

ed)

Stud

yN

Pred

icto

rm

easu

rer x

xC

rite

rion

mea

sure

r yy

r

Stur

man

(201

1)11

9G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.84

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.78

.60

Tew

s,M

iche

l,&

Noe

(201

1)26

5G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.81

Job

perf

orm

ance

(sup

ervi

sor-

rate

d).7

7.1

5T

ews,

Mic

hel,

&N

oe(2

011)

265

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

1C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

.90

.06

Tim

mer

man

(200

8)29

3G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.78

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.84

.54

van

Hoo

ft,

van

der

Flie

r,&

Min

ne(2

006)

122

Cog

nitiv

eA

bilit

y.8

3Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.82

.05

Vie

ira

(200

8)14

5M

ixed

EI

.58

Job

perf

orm

ance

(sup

ervi

sor-

rate

d).4

6

.07

Wan

g(2

002)

186

Gen

eral

Self

-Eff

icac

y.8

2M

ixed

EI

.76

.23

M.

B.

Wu

(200

8)36

Mix

edE

I.9

3Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.96

.35

M.

B.

Wu

(200

8)36

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.8

2Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.96

.46

M.

B.

Wu

(200

8)36

Ext

rave

rsio

n.7

2Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.96

.23

M.

B.

Wu

(200

8)36

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.82

Self

-rat

edjo

bpe

rfor

man

ce.9

6.4

2Y

.W

u(2

011)

571

Mix

edE

I.8

8Se

lf-r

ated

job

perf

orm

ance

.86

.44

Xie

,R

oy,

&C

hen

(200

6)17

86G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.89

Cog

nitiv

eA

bilit

y.9

0.0

6Y

amko

venk

o&

Hol

ton

(201

0)25

2G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.88

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss.8

1.5

8Y

amko

venk

o&

Hol

ton

(201

0)25

2G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.88

Ext

rave

rsio

n.7

7.4

3Y

amko

venk

o&

Hol

ton

(201

0)25

2G

ener

alSe

lf-E

ffic

acy

.88

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

.86

.35

Not

e.W

hen

relia

bilit

yin

form

atio

nw

asno

tav

aila

ble

inth

epr

imar

yst

udy,

the

aver

age

relia

bilit

yof

all

avai

labl

em

easu

res

incl

uded

inth

eor

igin

alm

eta-

anal

yses

was

subs

titut

ed.

EI

�em

otio

nal

inte

llige

nce;

r xx

�re

liabi

lity

ofth

epr

edic

tor;

r yy

�re

liabi

lity

ofth

ecr

iteri

on.

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


and cognitive ability?—is that a majority of variance in mixed EI(62%; multiple R � .79) is accounted for by these constructs, andthe most important predictors of mixed EI are personality traits andself-perceptions.

Next, we estimated the models in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Thesample size for these models was set at 2,168, which is the samplesize for the mixed EI–job performance bivariate relationship.When no common covariates were taken into consideration, therewas a statistically significant direct effect (� � .29; standardizedcoefficient) from mixed EI to job performance (i.e., the bivariatecorrelation). When the theorized antecedents (ability EI, Emo-tional Stability, cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, Extraversion,general self-efficacy, and self-rated job performance) were speci-fied as common covariates of both mixed EI and job performance(Figure 2, Model B), the mixed EI effect on job performancedropped from � � .29 to near zero (� � –.02, ns). Indeed, ourhypothesized model, which specified no incremental validity formixed EI in the presence of the seven KSAOs (i.e., the heteroge-neous domain sampling model; Figure 1, Model A), displayednearly perfect model fit indices [�2(df � 1) � 0.19 (p � .05),RMSEA � .00, CFI � 1.00, TLI � 1.01, SRMR � .001]. Theseresults support our expectation that mixed EI fails to exhibit

incremental validity when a set of common causes of mixed EI andjob performance are controlled. Consistent with these results, thefull mediation model (Figure 3, Model C) yielded poor model fit[�2(df � 7) � 232.84 (p � .05), RMSEA � .22, CFI � .88, TLI �.37, SRMR � .07]. Note that Model B is saturated (df � 0), andthus, the fit indices are meaningless (all fit indices take theirmaximum values, by design).

Finally, a meta-analysis of the relationship between mixed EI andobjective results measures of performance was conducted (see Ap-pendix B), in order to compare the bivariate mixed EI-performancerelationship across different criteria (i.e., supervisor ratings of perfor-mance vs. objective results criteria). The meta-analytic relationshipbetween mixed EI and objective results performance measures was�̂ � .17 (k � 11, N � 1,846), which is smaller than the estimatedrelationship between mixed EI and subjective supervisor ratings ofjob performance (�̂ � .29, k � 15, N � 2,168). This finding wasconsistent with our theoretical expectation that mixed EI (as anemployee KSAO/trait) would affect objective/results performance byway of supervisor-rated job performance behavior (see Figure 4). Totest this assertion, we entered the previously described meta-analyticcorrelations into a mediation model (for the correlation betweenobjective results and subjective performance ratings, we used Bom-mer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie’s [1995] meta-analyticestimate of �̂ � .39). The practical fit of this mediation model[�2(df � 1) � 7.69 (p � .05), N � 1,846, RMSEA � .060, CFI �.99, TLI � .96, SRMR � .02] was deemed adequate, and the indirecteffect of mixed EI on objective results performance was statisticallysignificant (95% Monte Carlo confidence interval [.09, .13]; Preacher& Selig, 2012; see Figure 2). If we had additionally estimated thedirect effect from mixed EI to objective results performance (df � 0;saturated model), the direct path coefficient would have beensmall (� � .06; p � .05), and the path from supervisor-rated jobperformance to objective results would have fallen a negligibleamount, from � � .39 to � � .37. Altogether, these resultssupport our assertion that mixed EI primarily relates to objec-tive results criteria by way of its relationship with supervisor-rated job performance (Figure 4).

Table 5Meta-Analytic Regression Predicting Mixed EI, Ability EI, and Job Performance

Predictor

Dependent variable

Mixed EI Ability EI Job performance Job performance

Ability EI .20� — .18� .19�

Conscientiousness .45� .07� .33� .34�

Extraversion .56� .04 .20� .21�

Emotional Stability .52� .03 .09� .11�

Cognitive ability .06� .21� .43� .42�

General self-efficacy .61� .54� .52� .53�

Self-rated performance .31� .25� .41� .42�

Mixed EI — — — .02

R2 .62� .23� .3948� .3950�

Adjusted R2 .61� .20� .3928� .3927�

�R2 .0002

Note. Standardized regression coefficients. For mixed emotional intelligence (EI), harmonic mean N � 2,127;for ability EI, harmonic mean N � 2,006; for job performance, N � 2,168 (i.e., the sample size for the mixedEI–job performance bivariate relationship).� p � .05.

Table 6Relative Importance Analysis

Variable

Mixed emotional intelligence

Raw relativeweights % of R2

Ability EI .034 5.5Conscientiousness .100 16.1Extraversion .166 26.5Emotional Stability .183 29.5Cognitive Ability .007 1.1General self-efficacy .042 6.8Self-rated performance .088 14.2R2 .62

Note. EI � emotional intelligence.

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


Discussion

The link between emotional intelligence and work outcomes suchas job performance has been an area of major controversy (Cherniss,2010; Murphy, 2006). Despite ever-growing attention from both thepublic and academia, and despite the well-known hyperclaims regard-ing the criterion-related validity of mixed EI in predicting workplacesuccess (e.g., Goleman, 1995), it has heretofore been unclear whatmixed EI instruments measure, and why these instruments predict jobperformance so well. The current study contributed to the existingliterature in two ways. First, we opened the black box of mixed EIconstruct validity by examining the extent to which mixed EI mea-sures capture content from the following constructs: Conscientious-ness, Extraversion, general self-efficacy, self-rated performance, abil-ity EI, Emotional Stability, and cognitive ability. Results demonstratethat a majority of the variance in mixed EI measures is captured bythese constructs (i.e., 62%; multiple R � .79), suggesting thesemeasures tend to sample content from various well-established con-struct domains in psychology.

Second, based on a combination of original and published meta-analytic results, we estimated the extent to which mixed EI demon-strates incremental validity over the seven well-established constructs(Figure 1) in hopes of answering the question, “Why does mixed EIstrongly predict job performance?” Our results indicated that aftercontrolling for these constructs, the relationship between mixed EIand job performance dropped to near zero (� � .02; ns). Basedupon these findings, the current study offers the unique insight that thepredictive merit of mixed EI can be almost fully explained after oneconsiders ability EI, self-perceptions (i.e., general self-efficacy andself-rated job performance), personality, and cognitive ability. Thisresult differs from the results of previous analyses (Joseph & New-man, 2010b; O’Boyle et al., 2011), which demonstrated sizeableincremental validity for mixed EI beyond the Big Five and cognitiveability but which did not control for self-perceptions or for ability EI.

En route to the previously stated result (i.e., answering why mixedEI predicts job performance), we also updated the meta-analyticcorrelation of mixed EI with job performance by including morestudies than previous meta-analyses and by applying a strict opera-tional definition of job performance that focused only on supervisorratings of performance. Our result (�̂ � .29) was notably smaller thanthe .47 estimate reported by Joseph and Newman (2010b) but quitesimilar to the effect size (�̂ � .28) reported by O’Boyle et al. (2011).However, we note that O’Boyle et al. (2011) had defined job perfor-mance very broadly, to include academic performance, sports perfor-mance, self-rated performance, work adjustment, and other criterioncontent (see Table 1). Thus, although the current effect size is similar,the construct relationship being estimated here is quite different fromthat of O’Boyle et al.

Theoretical Implications

We now have a theoretical explanation for why mixed EI predictsjob performance—and it turns out to be largely a psychometricexplanation. Mixed EI measures reflect a heterogeneous combinationof traits that have long been known to predict job performance. Thatis, mixed EI measures appear to have been developed (perhaps unin-tentionally) through a process of heterogeneous domain samplingfrom seven well-established content domains.

One implication of the heterogeneous domain sampling modelof mixed EI is that mixed EI researchers can now borrow substan-

tive theory from the constituent constructs of mixed EI. To elab-orate, because we now know what mixed EI is, we can use theoryfrom the nomological networks of the seven constituent constructdomains to explain additional outcomes of mixed EI beyond jobperformance. For example, the large portion of Emotional Stabil-ity, Extroversion, and Conscientiousness content in mixed EIcould help explain why mixed EI would be a robust predictor ofjob satisfaction (see Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002) and leadership(Harms & Credé, 2010; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002).

Another theoretical implication raised by our study involvesthe standards for construct validity itself and the general ques-tion of whether heterogeneous domain sampling should beconsidered a legitimate method for establishing “new” con-structs. On the one hand, some critics might raise the objectionthat discriminant validity is a cornerstone of construct validity(Campbell & Fiske, 1959), and heterogeneous domain samplingprevents discriminant validity, by definition (i.e., if mixed EIdirectly reflects its constituent constructs, then it cannot beconsidered distinct from them). As one example of this, heter-ogeneous domain sampling might help explain why the discrim-inant validity of EI ratings from Big Five personality domainsis sometimes weak (see multitrait–multimethod evidence fromJoseph & Newman, 2010a)— because EI ratings explicitly con-tain some Big Five content. On the other hand, proponents ofheterogeneous domain sampling might contend that creatingnovel composites of established constructs is itself a meaning-ful contribution. Macey and Schneider (2008) made this sort ofargument when they characterized the employee engagementconstruct as, “a new blend of old wines” (p. 10), despite the factthat employee engagement was rather clearly developed viaheterogeneous domain sampling by borrowing content from jobsatisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement, andjob affect (Newman & Harrison, 2008; Newman, Joseph, &Hulin, 2010). The question of whether heterogeneous domainsampling can be considered a legitimate new method for scaledevelopment is a major theoretical conundrum that emergesfrom the current article, but this question is, as yet, unanswered.

As an aside, we note that proprietary measurement—which is auseful way to protect intellectual property and recoup the costs ofmeasurement research and development—is nonetheless a barrier toscientific progress here, because proprietary measurement hides thesurvey items and thereby can hide the fact that a measure was derivedvia heterogeneous domain sampling. This practice gives short shrift tothe long-established constituent constructs, which are the predictiveworkhorses in newer compound concepts like mixed EI but which areforced into anonymity by measurement copyrights.

Finally, another natural consequence of the heterogeneous domainsampling model is the need to ensure more valid construct labeling.For mixed EI, the question is whether this composite construct shouldreally be called “emotional intelligence,” or even “emotional compe-tence” (cf. Cherniss, 2010). Although we do not feel authorized tosupplant the widely adopted “emotional intelligence” label, the im-plication of the current study for conceptual construct labeling is thatmixed EI measures reflect mixed competence traits (i.e., “mixed EI”describes individuals who are emotionally stable, outgoing, conscien-tious, with a high estimation of their own past and future performance,and [to a lesser extent] emotionally intelligent).

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


Limitations and Future Research

The current research is also vulnerable to certain limitations, whichleaves room for additional corresponding future research. One partic-ular Big Five trait that deserves further discussion here is Agreeable-ness. Ample research evidence has supported the overlap betweenAgreeableness and mixed EI (e.g., De Raad, 2005; Joseph & New-man, 2010b; Petrides & Furnham, 2001); however, we did not includeAgreeableness in our model (Figures 1, 2, and 3), primarily becausethis is a model of the theorized common causes of mixed EI and jobperformance. Agreeableness has a negligible relationship with jobperformance (Barrick & Mount, 1991), and it has been noted thatqualities such as empathy and interpersonal sensitivity might evenimpair job performance when the work situation demands ruthless-ness and toughness (Zeidner et al., 2004). However, we recommendthat future researchers who investigate the links between mixed EIand contextual performance (Ilies, Fulmer, Spitzmuller, & Johnson,2009), counterproductive work behavior (Berry, Ones, & Sackett,2007), or team performance (Bell, 2007) consider the role of Agree-ableness as a common cause. We should also note that whereas thecurrent study controlled for some broad Big Five traits (e.g., Extra-version, Conscientiousness), Mayer et al. (2008) specifically de-scribed mixed EI content in terms of narrower facets of these traits(e.g., gregariousness, assertiveness, impulse control). Future research-ers should attend to whether these particular personality subfacets canmore parsimoniously explain the mixed EI–job performance relation-ship.

As suggested by some researchers (Cherniss, 2010; Jordan,Dasborough, Daus, & Ashkanasy, 2010), future studies could alsoexplore the influence of the work context on EI. Depending on thetype of job, specific situation, or various kinds of people involved,different profiles inside the mixed EI “grab bag” may potentiallyhave different effects. As a meta-analysis, the current study onlyspeaks to average effects that were obtained across jobs.

It is also worth noting that whereas the current study focused onhow mixed EI appears to demonstrate a lack of incremental va-lidity after controlling for a linear combination of personality,self-perceptions, ability EI, and cognitive ability; some proponentsof mixed EI might argue that mixed EI is actually a profile ofvarious psychological constructs, rather than a simple linear com-bination, and this profile could demonstrate incremental validity inpredicting job performance. Although this may be the case, thecurrent study focused on how mixed EI is currently measured (i.e.,as a linear combination), and additional research would be neces-sary to investigate the issue of mixed EI profiles. As another issue,we mention that EI need not have uniformly positive effects. Therecould also be a dark side of EI, in which emotionally intelligentindividuals are capable of deviant behavior when motivated (Côté,DeCelles, McCarthy, Van Kleef, & Hideg, 2011; Kilduff, Chia-buru, & Menges, 2010).

As one final direction for future research, we note that the relation-ship between mixed EI and job performance may vary across dimen-sions of mixed EI. Based on a reviewer’s suggestion, we meta-analyzed the relationships of mixed EI facets with both jobperformance and the covariates shown in Figure 1 (see Appendix C;note that no primary study correlations were available between gen-eral self-efficacy and mixed EI facets, therefore specific self-efficacywas used as a substitute here). Although we could only estimate ourstructural models using the facets of Bar-On’s EQ-i (due to a lack of

facet-level data for other mixed EI measures; e.g., see Tables A andB), Table C shows that the covariates explain between 35% and 56%of the variance in each mixed EI facet; and Table C2 demonstratesthat after including the covariates, no mixed EI facet retains positiveincremental validity for job performance (although some EI facetsexhibit incremental validity with a negative regression coefficient, dueto suppressor effects). In essence, these facet-level examinationslargely replicate the results found for overall mixed EI: the covariatesexplain much of the mixed EI variance (helping to answer the ques-tion of what mixed EI is), and the covariates also explain the rela-tionship between mixed EI and job performance (helping to answerthe question of why mixed EI predicts job performance; although wecaution these EI facet-level results are based on a relatively smallamount of data).

Practical Implications

In addition to the currently proposed theoretical enhancement toour understanding of the mixed EI construct (i.e., our new explanationfor what mixed EI is and why mixed EI predicts job performance), thefindings of the current article have several practical implications.First, our findings reiterate previous meta-analytic conclusions thatsuggested mixed EI predicts supervisor ratings of job performancerather well—at least as strongly as any other personality construct(Joseph & Newman, 2010b; O’Boyle et al., 2011; cf. Barrick et al.,2001). Thus, for practitioners who have little concern about theoverlap between mixed EI and other, well-established psychologicalconstructs, these results suggest that mixed EI measures may be usedas part of a selection system because they tap into a diffuse, com-pound construct of personality and self-perceptions that exhibits rea-sonable criterion-related validity. This conclusion is markedly differ-ent from Joseph and Newman’s (2010b) admonition to, “exerciseextreme caution when using mixed EI measures” because it was “notclear why” mixed EI predicts job performance (p. 72). In other words,despite the fact that mixed EI does not appear to increase scientificparsimony in the construct space of the organizational sciences, thecurrent meta-analytic results suggest that practitioners could use asingle mixed EI measure to capture a portion of the criterion-relatedvalidity that could otherwise be captured by using a battery of sevenKSAOs.

However, we note that the criterion-related validity of mixed EI(r2 � .292 � .08) falls notably short of the criterion-related validityfor the composite of seven KSAOs (R2 � 39; see Table 5)—revealingthat although mixed EI offers no incremental prediction beyond theseven KSAOs, the seven KSAOs do offer considerable incrementalprediction beyond mixed EI. As such, and given that the majority ofmixed EI measures are proprietary and require fees to administer,practitioners will likely be faced with a choice between a shorter,more expensive mixed EI measure with lower criterion-related valid-ity versus a much longer battery of personality, cognitive ability, andself-concept measures with notably higher criterion-related validity.Managing this tradeoff will depend upon practitioners’ judgmentsabout applicants’ time, willingness, and capability to complete alengthy battery of seven KSAOs. Another practical implication of thecurrent article is that it illustrates a difficult decision practitioners mustmake once they have determined they want to assess EI. Practitionersmust choose between ability EI measures, which show a weakerrelationship with job performance but more precisely capture thenotion of EI as an intelligence (MacCann et al., 2014), versus mixed

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


EI measures, which show a stronger relationship with job perfor-mance but broadly measure many constructs in addition to emotionalcompetencies.

Conclusion

The current study attempted to help unravel the mix of whatmixed EI actually is. According to current results, the activeingredients in mixed EI—which make it one of the strongestknown personality-based predictors of job performance—includeConscientiousness, self-efficacy, self-rated performance, and Ex-traversion (confirming the conjectures of Mayer et al., 2008, andNewman et al., 2010), in addition to ability EI, Emotional Stabil-ity, and cognitive ability. These results illustrate that developers ofmixed EI measures may have engaged in heterogeneous domainsampling (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Ghiselli et al., 1981; Nun-nally, 1967), whereby mixed EI measures were constructed tosample from various well-known psychological content domains.Armed with new knowledge of which psychological fundamentsconstitute mixed EI measures, the current article aids in the processof establishing the construct validity of mixed EI. In answer to thework that questioned whether mixed EI measures should be usedin personnel selection because it was not clear why mixed EIpredicted job performance (Joseph & Newman, 2010b), the currentresults suggest that practitioners might be using measures of mixedEI as a practical, shorthand alternative to a lengthy battery ofseveral more traditional KSAOs.

References

Adeyemo, D. A. (2007). Moderating influence of emotional intelligence onthe link between academic self-efficacy and achievement of universitystudents. Psychology and Developing Societies, 19, 199–213. doi:10.1177/097133360701900204

�Adeyemo, D. A., & Ogunyemi, B. (2005). Emotional intelligence andself-efficacy as predictors of occupational stress among academic staffin a Nigerian university. E-Journal of Organizational Learning andLeadership, 4. No. 1. Retrieved from http://www.leadingtoday.org/weleadinlearning/da05.htm

Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance management (3rd ed.). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Pearson–Prentice Hall.

Ahmetoglu, G., Leutner, F., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). EQ-nomics:Understanding the relationship between individual differences in TraitEmotional Intelligence and entrepreneurship. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 51, 1028–1033.

Aremu, A. O., & Lawal, G. A. (2009). A path model investigating theinfluence of some personal-psychological factors on the career aspira-tions of police trainees: A perspective from Oyo State, Nigeria. PolicePractice & Research, 10, 239–254. doi:10.1080/15614260802381059

Arthur, W., Jr., & Villado, A. J. (2008). The importance of distinguishingbetween constructs and methods when comparing predictors in person-nel selection research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,435–442. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.435

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2003). Emotional awareness andemotional intelligence in leadership teaching. Journal of Education forBusiness, 79, 18–22. doi:10.1080/08832320309599082

Austin, E. J., Evans, P., Goldwater, R., & Potter, V. (2005). A preliminarystudy of emotional intelligence, empathy, and exam performance in firstyear medical students. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1395–1405. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.04.014

Austin, E. J., Farrelly, D., Black, C., & Moore, H. (2007). Emotionalintelligence, Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation: Does EIhave a dark side? Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 179–189.

Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Egan, V. (2005). Personality, well-beingand health correlates of trait emotional intelligence. Personality andIndividual Differences, 38, 547–558.

Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., Huang, S. H. S., & McKenney, D. (2004).Measurement of trait emotional intelligence: Testing and cross-validating a modified version of Schutte et al.’s (1998) measure. Per-sonality and Individual Differences, 36, 555–562. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00114-4

Avery, D. R. (2003). Personality as a predictor of the value of voice. Journalof Psychology, 137, 435–446. doi:10.1080/00223980309600626

Bachman, J., Stein, S., Campbell, K., & Sitarenios, G. (2000). Emotionalintelligence in the collection of debt. International Journal of Selectionand Assessment, 8, 176–182.

Baker, B. A. (2007). Maximizing multisource feedback: The use of goalsetting to facilitate performance improvement (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh.

Barchard. (2003). Does emotional intelligence assist in the prediction ofacademic success? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63,840–858.

Barfoot, D. S. (2007). Antecedents of leader–follower trust in a Christianchurch organization (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Regent Uni-versity, Virginia Beach, VA.

Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical man-ual. Toronto, ON, Canada: Multihealth Systems.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimen-sions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44,1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality andperformance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we knowand where do we go next? International Journal of Selection andAssessment, 9, 9–30. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00160

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousnessand performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effectsof goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715–722. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.715

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality andjob performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation amongsales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43–51. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.43

Bedwell, S. (2003). Emotional Judgment Inventory (EJI): Administrationand technical manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality andAbility Testing.

Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of teamperformance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595–615. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595

Bellamy, A., Gore, D., & Sturgis, J. (2005). Examining the relevance ofemotional intelligence within educational programs for the gifted andtalented. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 6,53–78.

Bern, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advancesin experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.

Bernard, L. C., Hutchison, S., Lavin, A., & Pennington, P. (1996). Ego-strength, hardiness, self-esteem, self-efficacy, optimism, and maladjust-ment: Health-related personality constructs and the “Big Five” model ofpersonality. Assessment, 3, 115–131.

Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance,organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review andmeta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410

�Best, R. G. (2002). Are self-evaluations at the core of job burnout?(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kansas State University, Manhat-tan.

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/097133360701900204

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/097133360701900204

http://www.leadingtoday.org/weleadinlearning/da05.htm

http://www.leadingtoday.org/weleadinlearning/da05.htm

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15614260802381059

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.435

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320309599082

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.04.014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869%2803%2900114-4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869%2803%2900114-4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980309600626

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00160

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.715

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.715

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.43

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.43

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410

Bishop, K., & Johnson, D. E. (2011). The effects of ability, perceptions ofability, and task characteristics on proximal and distal performanceoutcomes over time. Human Performance, 24, 173–188. doi:10.1080/08959285.2011.554136

�Bledow, R., & Frese, M. (2009). A situational judgment test of personalinitiative and its relationship to performance. Personnel Psychology, 62,229–258. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01137.x

�Blickle, G., Momm, T. S., Kramer J., Mierke, J., Liu, Y., & Ferris, G. R.(2009). Construct and criterion-related validation of a measure of emo-tional reasoning skills: A two-study investigation. International Journalof Selection and Assessment, 17, 101–118. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00455.x

Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., &MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective andsubjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis. Per-sonnel Psychology, 48, 587– 605. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01772.x

�Boyar, S. L., & Mosley, D. C. (2007). The relationship between coreself-evaluations and work and family satisfaction: The mediating role ofwork–family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior,71, 265–281. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.06.001

Boyatzis, R. E. (2006). Using tipping points of emotional intelligence andcognitive competencies to predict financial performance of leaders.Psicothema, 18, 124–131.

Boyatzis, R. E. (2009). Competencies as a behavioral approach to emo-tional intelligence. Journal of Management Development, 28, 749–770.doi:10.1108/02621710910987647

Boyatzis, R. E., & Goleman, D. (2001). Emotional Competence Inventory.Boston, MA: Hay Group.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Sala, F. (2004). The Emotional Competence Inventory(ECI). In G. Geher (Ed.), Measuring emotional intelligence: Commonground and controversy (pp. 147–180). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

�Boyce, L. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Wisecarver, M. Z. (2010). Propensity forself-development of leadership attributes: Understanding, predicting,and supporting performance of leader self-development. The LeadershipQuarterly, 21, 159–178. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.012

Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, andincremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147–1158. doi:10.1177/0146167203254596

Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P.(2006). Relating emotional abilities to social functioning: A comparisonof self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 780–795. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.780

Bradberry, T., & Greaves, J. (2009). Emotional intelligence 2.0. San Diego,CA: TalentSmart.

Breland, B. T., & Donovan, J. J. (2005). The role of state goal orientationin the goal establishment process. Human Performance, 18, 23–53.doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1801_2

Brizz, T. (2004). Parish vibrancy: A reflection of pastoral leadership onparishioner support and parishioner satisfaction. Unpublished manu-script, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western ReserveUniversity, Cleveland, OH.

Brown, C., George-Curran, R., & Smith, M. L. (2003). The role ofemotional intelligence in the career commitment and decision-makingprocess. Journal of Career Assessment, 11, 379–392. doi:10.1177/1069072703255834

Brown, F. W., Bryant, S. E., & Reilly, M. D. (2006). Does emotionalintelligence—as measured by the EQI—influence transformational lead-ership and/or desirable outcomes? Leadership & Organization Develop-ment Journal, 27, 330–351. doi:10.1108/01437730610677954

�Brown, R. F., & Schutte, N. S. (2006). Direct and indirect relationshipsbetween emotional intelligence and subjective fatigue in university

students. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60, 585–593. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2006.05.001

�Brown, T. J., Mowen, J. C., Donavan, D. T., & Licata, J. W. (2002). Thecustomer orientation of service workers: Personality trait effects on self-and supervisor performance ratings. Journal of Marketing Research, 39,110–119. doi:10.1509/jmkr.39.1.110.18928

�Bryan, S. A. (2007). Emotional intelligence and self-efficacy in mentalhealth nurses (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gonzaga University,Spokane, WA.

Bryant, D. (2005). The components of emotional intelligence and therelationship to sales performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).George Washington University, Washington, DC.

Budnik, M. F. (2003). Emotional intelligence and burnout: Influence onthe intent of staff nurses to leave nursing (Unpublished doctoral disser-tation). University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ.

�Burke, R. J., Matthiesen, S. B., & Pallesen, S. (2006). Personality corre-lates of workaholism. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1223–1233. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.017

�Byrne, J. C. (2003). The role of emotional intelligence in predictingleadership and related work behavior (Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion). Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ.

Byrne, J. C., Dominick, P. G., Smither, J. W., & Reilly, R. R. (2007).Examination of the discriminant, convergent, and criterion-related va-lidity of self-ratings on the Emotional Competence Inventory. Interna-tional Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 341–353. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00393.x

�Byron, K. (2007). Male and female managers’ ability to read emotions:Relationships with supervisor’s performance ratings and subordinates’satisfaction ratings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-chology, 80, 713–733. doi:10.1348/096317907X174349

�Byron, K., Terranova, S., & Nowicki, S. (2007). Nonverbal emotionrecognition and salespersons: Linking ability to perceived and actualsuccess. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2600–2619. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00272.x

Calloway, J. D. A. (2010). Performance implications of emotional intelli-gence and transformational leadership: Toward the development of aself-efficacious military leader (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Capella University.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminantvalidation by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin,56, 81–105. doi:10.1037/h0046016

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem inindustrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and organizational psychology(Vol. 1, pp. 687–732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). Atheory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnelselection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

�Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence andwork attitudes, behavior and outcomes: An examination among seniormanagers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 788–813. doi:10.1108/02683940310511881

Carmeli, A., & Josman, Z. E. (2006). The relationship among emotionalintelligence, task performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors.Human Performance, 19, 403–419. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1904_5

Cavins, B. J. (2005). The relationship between emotional-social intelli-gence and leadership practices among college student leaders (Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation). Bowling Green State University, BowlingGreen, OH.

Chan, D. W. (2003). Dimensions of emotional intelligence and theirrelationships with social coping among gifted adolescents in HongKong. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 409–418. doi:10.1023/A:1025982217398

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.554136

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.554136

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01137.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00455.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00455.x



http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.06.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621710910987647

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.012

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254596

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254596

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.780

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.780

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1801_2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1069072703255834

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1069072703255834

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730610677954

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2006.05.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2006.05.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.39.1.110.18928


http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00393.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00393.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317907X174349

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00272.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00272.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0046016

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940310511881

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940310511881


http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025982217398

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025982217398

�Chan, D. W. (2004). Perceived emotional intelligence and self-efficacyamong Chinese secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Personalityand Individual Differences, 36, 1781–1795. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.07.007

Chan, D. W. (2008). Emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, and coping amongChinese prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong. EducationalPsychology, 28, 397–408. doi:10.1080/01443410701668372

Chan, K.-Y. (1999). Toward a theory of individual differences and lead-ership: Understanding the motivation to lead (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

�Chang, E. S. (2008). The role of dispositional optimism and personality inpredicting law school and lawyering performance (Unpublished doc-toral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new generalself-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62–83. doi:10.1177/109442810141004

�Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2004). General self-efficacy andself-esteem: Toward theoretical and empirical distinction between cor-related self-evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 375–395. doi:10.1002/job.251

�Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J. A., & Kilcullen, R. N. (2000).Examination of relationships among trait-like individual differences,state-like individual differences, and learning performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 85, 835–847. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.835

�Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). The impact of expectations onnewcomer performance in teams as mediated by work characteristics,social exchanges, and empowerment. Academy of Management Journal,46, 591–607. doi:10.2307/30040651

�Chen, S. X., & Carey, T. P. (2009). Assessing citizenship behavior ineducational contexts: The role of personality, motivation, and culture.Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27, 125–137. doi:10.1177/0734282908325146

Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Toward clarification of aconcept. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 110–126. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01231.x

Cheung, M. W. L., & Chan, W. (2005). Meta-analytic structural equationmodeling: A two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10, 40–64.doi:10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.40

Chipain, G. C. (2003). Emotional intelligence and its relation to salesperformance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). DePaul University,Chicago, IL.

�Christiansen, N. D., Janovics, J. E., & Siers, B. P. (2010). Emotionalintelligence in selection contexts: Measurement method, criterion-related validity, and vulnerability to response distortion. InternationalJournal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 87–101. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00491.x

�Chu, T. (2007). Individual traits, strain, and job satisfaction in Taiwan.(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Da-vie, FL.

Cikanek, K. L. (2006). Emotional intelligence and coping skills as predic-tors of counselor self-efficacy with genetic counseling graduate students(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneap-olis.

�Clemmons, A. B. (2008). Values as determinants of motivation to lead(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Regent University, Virginia Beach,VA.

�Cobêro, C., Primi, R., & Muniz, M. (2006). Emotional intelligence andjob performance: A study with MSCEIT, BPR-5 and 16PF. Paideia(Ribeirão Preto), 16, 337–348.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multipleregression correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Collins, V. L. (2002). Emotional intelligence and leadership success (Un-published doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between person-ality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 93, 1080–1107. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1080

�Converse, P. D., Steinhauser, E., & Pathak, J. (2010). Individual differ-ences in reactions to goal-performance discrepancies over time. Person-ality and Individual Differences, 48, 138–143. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.09.010

Corballis, M. C. (1965). Practice and the simplex. Psychological Review,72, 399–406. doi:10.1037/h0022234

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO PersonalityInventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) pro-fessional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Côté, S., DeCelles, K. A., McCarthy, J. M., Van Kleef, G. A., & Hideg, I.(2011). The Jekyll and Hyde of emotional intelligence: Emotional-regulation knowledge facilitates both prosocial and interpersonally de-viant behavior. Psychological Science, 22, 1073–1080. doi:10.1177/0956797611416251

�Côté, S., & Miners, C. T. H. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitiveintelligence, and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51,1–28.

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychologicaltests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. doi:10.1037/h0040957

Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). The case for the ability-basedmodel of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 26, 453–466. doi:10.1002/job.321

Dawda, D., & Hart, S. D. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: Reli-ability and validity of the BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-I) inuniversity students. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 797–812.

Day, A. L., Therrien, D. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2005). Predicting psycho-logical health: Assessing the incremental validity of emotional intelli-gence beyond personality, Type A behaviour and daily hassles. Euro-pean Journal of Personality, 19, 519–536.

De Raad, B. (2005). The trait-coverage of emotional intelligence. Person-ality and Individual Differences, 38, 673–687. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.022

Derksen, J., Kramer, I., & Katzko, M. (2002). Does a self-report measurefor emotional intelligence assess something different than general intel-ligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 37–48.

�DeRue, D. S., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Stability and change in person-team and person-role fit over time: The effects of growth satisfaction,performance, and general self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology,92, 1242–1253. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1242

Devaraj, S., Easley, R. F., & Grant, J. M. (2008). How does personalitymatter? Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use.Information Systems Research, 19, 93–105. doi:10.1287/isre.1070.0153

�Devonish, D., & Greenidge, D. (2010). The effect of organizational justiceon contextual performance, counterproductive work behaviors, and taskperformance: Investigating the moderating role of ability-based emo-tional intelligence. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,18, 75–86. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00490.x

Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2008). Career decision difficulties andemotional intelligence: Some empirical facts on a sample of Italianapprentices. Pratiques Psychologiques, 14, 213–222.

Downey, L. A., Lee, B., & Stough, C. (2011). Recruitment consultantrevenue: Relationships with IQ, personality, and emotional intelligence.International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 280–286.

Drew, T. L. (2007). The relationship between emotional intelligence andstudent teacher performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Uni-versity of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (1999). Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire:User guide. Berkshire, England: NFER-Nelson.

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.




http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410701668372

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.251

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.835

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/30040651

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282908325146

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282908325146

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01231.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01231.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.40

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00491.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00491.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1080



http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0022234

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611416251

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611416251

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0040957




http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1242

http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0153

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00490.x

Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence: A review andevaluation study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 341–372.doi:10.1108/02683940010330993

�Dulewicz, V., Higgs, M., & Slaski, M. (2003). Measuring emotionalintelligence: Content, construct and criterion-related validity. Jour-nal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 405– 420. doi:10.1108/02683940310484017

�Durán, A., Extremera, N., Rey, L., Fernandez-Berrocal, P., & Montalban,F. M. (2006). Predicting academic burnout and engagement in educa-tional settings: Assessing the incremental validity of perceived emo-tional intelligence beyond perceived stress and general self-efficacy.Psicothema, 18, 158–164.

Duval, S. J., & Tweedie, R. L. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x

Easton, C. J. (2004). The relationship between emotional intelligence andcounseling self-efficacy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). NorthernArizona University, Flagstaff.

�Ebstrup, J. F., Eplov, L. F., Pisinger, C., & Jorgensen, T. (2011). Asso-ciation between the Five Factor personality traits and perceived stress: Isthe effect mediated by general self-efficacy? Anxiety, Stress, & Coping,24, 407–419. doi:10.1080/10615806.2010.540012

Edwards, J. F. (1998). Several nonintellective variables and the “big five”personality factors as predictors of academic performance by first-yearcollege students (Unpublished master thesis). Mississippi State Univer-sity, Mississippi State.

�Eissa, M., & Khalifa, W. (2008). Emotional intelligence and self-efficacyas predictors of job stress among elementary school teachers in Egypt. InJ. Cassady & M. Eissa (Eds.), Emotional intelligence: Perspectives oneducational and positive psychology (pp. 77–89). New York, NY: Lang.

�Elfenbein, H. A., Curhan, J. R., Eisenkraft, N., Shirako, A., & Baccaro, L.(2008). Are some negotiators better than others? Individual differencesin bargaining outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1463–1475. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.010

Emmons, R. A. (1989). The personal strivings approach to personality. InL. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology(pp. 87–117). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Enhelder, M. (2011). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to finan-cial advisor sales performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.

�Erez, A., & Judge, A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goalsetting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 1270–1279. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1270

�Fan, J., Meng, H., Billings, R. S., Litchfield, R. C., & Kaplan, I. (2008).On the role of goal orientation traits and self-efficacy in the goal-settingprocess: Distinctions that make a difference. Human Performance, 21,354–382. doi:10.1080/08959280802347122

�Farh, C. I. C. C., Seo, M. G., & Tesluk, P. E. (2012). Emotional intelli-gence, teamwork effectiveness, and job performance: The moderatingrole of job context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 890–900. doi:10.1037/a0027377

Farrelly, D., & Austin, E. J. (2007). Ability EI as an intelligence? Asso-ciations of the MSCEIT with performance on emotion processing andsocial tasks and with cognitive ability. Cognition and Emotion, 21,1043–1063.

Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2006). Personality and the perception of transfor-mational leadership: The impact of extraversion, neuroticism, personalneed for structure, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 36, 708 –739. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00026.x

�Feng, D., Lu, C., & Xiao, O. (2008). Job Insecurity, well-being, and jobperformance: The role of general self-efficacy. Acta Psychologica Si-nica, 40, 448–455. doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2008.00448

Fillion, F. (2001). The construct validation of two measures of emotionalintelligence. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph,Ontario, Canada.

�Fortunato, V. J., & Goldblatt, A. M. (2006). An examination of goalorientation profiles using cluster analysis and their relationships withdispositional characteristics and motivational response patterns. Journalof Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2150–2183. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00099.x

�Foti, R. J., & Hauenstein, M. A. (2007). Pattern and variable approachesin leadership emergence and effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 92, 347–355. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.347

�Frese, M., Krauss, S. I., Keith, N., Escher, S., Grabarkiewicz, R., Luneng,S. T., . . . Friedrich, C. (2007). Business owners’ action planning and itsrelationship to business success in three African countries. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 92, 1481–1498. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1481

�Fuller, B., Simmering, M. J., Marler, L. E., Cox, S. S., Bennett, R. J., &Cheramie, R. A. (2011). Exploring touch as a positive workplace be-havior. Human Relations, 64, 231–256. doi:10.1177/0018726710377931

Furnham, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence andhappiness. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 815–823. doi:10.2224/sbp.2003.31.8.815

�Gabel, R. S., Dolan, S. L., & Cerdin, J. L. (2005). Emotional intelligenceas predictor of cultural adjustment for success in global assignments.Career Development International, 10, 375–395. doi:10.1108/13620430510615300

�García-lzquierdo, A., García-lzquierdo, M., & Ramos-Villagrasa, P. J.(2007). Emotional intelligence and self-efficacy in personnel selectioncontexts. Anales de Psicologia, 23, 231–239.

�Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacywithin the organizational context: An empirical examination. Group &Organization Management, 23, 48–70. doi:10.1177/1059601198231004

�Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (2010). The Core Self-Evaluation Scale:Further construct validation evidence. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 70, 291–304. doi:10.1177/0013164409344505

Gerhardt, M. W., Rode, J. C., & Peterson, S. J. (2007). Exploring mech-anisms in the personality-performance relationship: Mediating roles ofself-management and situational constraints. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 43, 1344–1355. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.001

Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theoryfor the behavioral sciences. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

Gignac, G. E. (2010). Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory technicalmanual (2nd ed.). Sydney, Waterloo, Australia: Genos.

�Goldsmith, T. B. (2008). Relationships between emotional intelligenceand individual workplace performance (Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion). Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam.Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 76,

93–102.Gordon-Handler, L. (2009). The relationship between emotional intelli-

gence and clinical performance in an occupational therapy trainingprogram (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northcentral University,Prescott Valley, AZ.

Government Accounting Office. (1998). Military recruiting: The Depart-ment of Defense could improve its recruiter selection and incentivesystems (NSIAD-98-58). Retrieved August 20, 2014, from http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-98-58

Graves, J. G. (1999). Emotional intelligence and cognitive ability: Pre-dicting performance in job simulated activities (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego,CA.

Grewal, D. D., & Salovey, P. (2005). Feeling smart: The science ofemotional intelligence. American Scientist, 93, 330–339. doi:10.1511/2005.54.969

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940010330993

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940310484017

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940310484017

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x


http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2010.540012

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.010

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1270

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959280802347122

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027377

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027377

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00026.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00026.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2008.00448

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00099.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00099.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.347

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1481

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726710377931

http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.8.815


http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620430510615300

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620430510615300

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601198231004

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164409344505


http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-98-58

http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-98-58

http://dx.doi.org/10.1511/2005.54.969

http://dx.doi.org/10.1511/2005.54.969

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235317908_Measuring_emotional_intelligence_Content_construct_and_criterion-related_validity?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12442279_Trim_and_Fill_A_Simple_Funnel-Plot-Based_Method_of_Testing_and_Adjusting_for_Publication_Bias_in_Meta-Analysis?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49735403_Association_between_the_Five_Factor_personality_traits_and_perceived_stress_is_the_effect_mediated_by_general_self-efficacy?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/35026942_Several_nonintellective_variables_and_the_Big_Five_personality_factors_as_predictors_of_academic_performance_by_first-year_college_students?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232471296_The_personal_striving_approach_to_personality?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



Griffin, C. (2006). Investigating the effects of stable personality traits oncomputer self-efficacy with repeated training (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. (2003). Individual differences in two emotionregulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348–362.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348

Gross, J. J., Sutton, S. K., & Ketelaar, T. (1998). Relations between affectand personality: Supper for the affect-level and affective-reactivityviews. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 279–288. doi:10.1177/0146167298243005

Grote, D. (1996). The complete guide to performance appraisal, NewYork, NY: American Management Association.

Grubb, W. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). The fakability of Bar-On’sEmotional Quotient Inventory Short Form: Catch me if you can. HumanPerformance, 20, 43–59.

Hader, E. M. (2006). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to cog-nitive and social task requirements (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Alliant International University, San Diego, CA.

�Hadley, J. G. (2003). A test of Bandura’s theory: Generalized self-efficacyand the personality traits of introversion and extroversion as measuresof job performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Saybrook Grad-uate School and Research Center, San Francisco, CA.

Hammond, M. S., Lockman, J. D., & Boling, T. (2010). A test of thetripartite model of career indecision of Brown and Krane for AfricanAmericans incorporating emotional intelligence and positive affect.Journal of Career Assessment, 18, 161–176. doi:10.1177/1069072709354201

�Hanna, M. E. (2008). Emotional intelligence: Comparisons of criterion-related validity across conceptual and methodological variants of mea-surement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Clemson University,Clemson, SC.

Harms, P. D., & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence and trans-formational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal ofLeadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 5–17. doi:10.1177/1548051809350894

Hartman, R. O. (2006). The five-factor model and career self-efficacy:General and domain-specific relationships (Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation). Ohio State University, Columbus.

Hartsfield, M. (2003). The internal dynamics of transformational leader-ship: Effects of spirituality, emotional intelligence, and self-efficacy.(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Regent University, Virginia Beach,VA.

�Heggestad, E. D., & Morrison, M. J. (2008). An inductive exploration ofthe social effectiveness construct space. Journal of Personality, 76,839–874. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00506.x

Heidemeier, H., & Moser, K. (2009). Self–other agreement in job perfor-mance ratings: A meta-analytic test of a process model. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 94, 353–370. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.94.2.353

Helson, R., & Kwan, V. S. Y. (2000). Personality development in adult-hood: The broad picture and processes in one longitudinal sample. In S.Hampson (Eds.), Advances in personality psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77–106). London, England: Routledge.

Hendricks, J. W., & Payne, S. C. (2007). Beyond the big five: Leader goalorientation as a predictor of leadership effectiveness. Human Perfor-mance, 20, 317–343.

Herbst, H. H., Maree, J. G., & Sibanda, E. (2006). Emotional intelligenceand leadership abilities. South African Journal of Higher Education, 20,592–612.

�Higgins, D. M. (2009). The roles of psychometric intelligence and pre-frontal cognitive ability in the prediction of academic and job perfor-mance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard University, Cam-bridge, MA.

�Higgins, D. M., Peterson, J. B., Pihl, R. O., & Lee, A. G. M. (2007).Prefrontal cognitive ability, intelligence, Big Five personality, and theprediction of advanced academic and workplace performance. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 93, 298–319. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.298

�Higgins, H. R. (2001). Construct validity of general self-efficacy: Inves-tigation of overlap in general self-efficacy, domain-specific self-efficacy,and personality (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Georgia,Athens.

Higgs, M. (2004). A study of the relationship between emotionalintelligence and performance in United Kingdom call centres. Jour-nal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 442– 454. doi:10.1108/02683940410537972

Higgs, M., & Aitken, P. (2003). An exploration of the relationship betweenemotional intelligence and leadership potential. Journal of ManagerialPsychology, 18, 814–823. doi:10.1108/02683940310511890

Hirschi, A. (2008). Personality complexes in adolescence: Traits, interests,work values, and self-evaluations. Personality and Individual Differ-ences, 45, 716–721. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.018

Hopkins, M. M., & Bilimoria, D. (2008). Social and emotional com-petencies predicting success for male and female executives. Journalof Management Development, 27, 13–35. doi:10.1108/02621710810840749

Hotard, S. R., McFatter, R. M., McWhirter, R. M., & Stegall, M. E. (1989).Interactive effects of extraversion, neuroticism, and social relationshipson subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,57, 321–331. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.321

Huang, X., Chan, S. C. H., Lam, W., & Nan, X. (2010). The joint effect ofleader-member exchange and emotional intelligence on burnout andwork performance in call centers in China. International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, 21, 1124 –1144. doi:10.1080/09585191003783553

Humphreys, L. G. (1960). Investigations of the simplex. Psychometrika,25, 313–323. doi:10.1007/BF02289750

Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternativepredictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.72

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Cor-recting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance:The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.869

Ilies, R., Fulmer, I. S., Spitzmuller, M., & Johnson, M. D. (2009). Person-ality and citizenship behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction.Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 945–959. doi:10.1037/a0013329

Jennings, S., & Palmer, B. R. (2007). Enhancing sales performance throughemotional intelligence development. Organisations and People, 14, 55–61.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History,measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp.102–139). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relativeweight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Be-havioral Research, 35, 1–19. doi:10.1207/S15327906MBR3501_1

Johnson, J. W. (2001). The relative importance of task and contextualperformance dimensions to supervisor judgments of overall perfor-mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 984–996. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.984

Johnson, J. W., & LeBreton, J. M. (2004). History and use of relativeimportance indices in organizational research. Organizational ResearchMethods, 7, 238–257. doi:10.1177/1094428104266510

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167298243005

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167298243005

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1069072709354201

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1069072709354201

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051809350894

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051809350894

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00506.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.94.2.353

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.298

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.298

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940410537972

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940410537972

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940310511890


http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621710810840749

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621710810840749

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.321

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585191003783553

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585191003783553

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02289750

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.72

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.72

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.869

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013329

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3501_1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.984

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.984

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428104266510

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243782508_Relations_between_Affect_and_Personality_Support_for_the_Affect-Level_and_Affective-Reactivity_Views?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233308552_The_Fakability_of_Bar-On's_Emotional_Quotient_Inventory_Short_Form_Catch_Me_if_You_Can?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



�Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Djurdjevic, E. (2011). Assessing theimpact of common method variance on higher order multidimensionalconstructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 744–761. doi:10.1037/a0021504

Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29,262–279. doi:10.2307/256188

Jones, M. B. (1962). Practice as a process of simplification. PsychologicalReview, 69, 274–294. doi:10.1037/h0045169

Jordan, P. J., Dasborough, M. T., Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2010).A call to context. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 145–148. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01215.x

Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010a). Discriminant validity of self-reported emotional intelligence: A multitrait–multisource study. Educa-tional and Psychological Measurement, 70, 672–694. doi:10.1177/0013164409355700

Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010b). Emotional intelligence: Anintegrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 95, 54–78. doi:10.1037/a0017286

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluationstraits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emo-tional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80

�Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Coreself-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,257–268. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.257

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personalityand leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 87, 765–780. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765

�Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and jobsatisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 85, 237–249. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.237

�Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Aremeasures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalizedself-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 83, 693–710. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.693

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model ofpersonality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 87, 530–541. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530

Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007).Self-efficacy and work-related performance: The integral role of indi-vidual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 107–127. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.107

�Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourselfabundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self- and otherperceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextualperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762–776. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.762

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositionalcauses of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 19, 151–188.

�Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998).Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of coreevaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.17

�Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999).Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspec-tive. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.107

Kämpfe, N., & Mitte, K. (2010). Tell me who you are, and I will tell youhow you feel? European Journal of Personality, 24, 291–308.

Kaur, I., Schutte, N. S., & Thorsteinsson, E. B. (2006). Gambling controlself-efficacy as a mediator of the effects of low emotional intelligence onproblem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 22, 405–411. doi:10.1007/s10899-006-9029-1

Kepes, S. (2008). Sales self-efficacy: Scale development and nomologicalvalidation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arkansas,Little Rock.

Kerr, R., Garvin, J., Heaton, N., & Boyle, E. (2006). Emotional intelligenceand leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization DevelopmentJournal, 27, 265–279. doi:10.1108/01437730610666028

Kilduff, M., Chiaburu, D. S., & Menges, J. I. (2010). Strategic use ofemotional intelligence in organizational settings: Exploring the darkside. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 129–152. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2010.10.002

Kilic-Bebek, E. (2009). Explaining match achievement: Personality, mo-tivation, and trust (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cleveland StateUniversity, OH.

Kim, T.-Y., Cable, D. M., Kim, S.-P., & Wang, J. (2009). Emotionalcompetence and work performance: The mediating effect of proactivityand the moderating effect of job autonomy. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 30, 983–1000. doi:10.1002/job.610

�Kirk, B. A., Schutte, N. S., & Hine, D. W. (2008). Development andpreliminary validation of an emotional self-efficacy scale. Personalityand Individual Differences, 45, 432–436. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.010

�Kluemper, D. H. (2006). An examination of ability-based emotionalintelligence in the structured employment interview (Unpublished doc-toral dissertation). Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.

�Kluemper, D. H., DeGroot, T., & Choi, S. (2013). Emotion managementability: Predicting task performance, citizenship, and deviance. Journalof Management, 39, 878–905. doi:10.1177/0149206311407326

Kohan, A. (2002). Emotional intelligence: An investigation of discriminantand concurrent validity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). LakeheadUniversity, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.

Korman, A. K. (1970). Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 54, 31–41. doi:10.1037/h0028656

�Kostman, J. T. (2004). Multi-dimensional performance requires multi-dimensional predictors: Predicting complex job performance using cog-nitive ability, personality and emotional intelligence assessment instru-ments as combinatorial predictors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).City University of New York, NY.

Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2009). Balancing bordersand bridges: Negotiating the work–home interface via boundary worktactics. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 704–730. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.43669916

�Ladebo, O. J., & Awotunde, J. M. (2007). Emotional and behavioralreactions to work overload: Self-efficacy as a moderator. Current Re-search in Social Psychology, 13, 86–100.

Landis, R. S. (2013). Successfully combining meta-analysis and structuralequation modeling: Recommendations and strategies. Journal of Busi-ness and Psychology, 28, 251–261. doi:10.1007/s10869-013-9285-x

Landy, F. J. (2005). Some historical and scientific issues related to researchon emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,411–424. doi:10.1002/job.317

Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. (1983). The measurement of work performance:Methods, theory, and applications. New York, NY: Academic Press.

�Langendörfer, F. (2008). Personality differences among orchestra instru-mental groups: Just a stereotype? Personality and Individual Differ-ences, 44, 610–620. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.027

Langhorn, S. (2004). How emotional intelligence can improve manage-ment performance. International Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement, 16, 220–230. doi:10.1108/09596110410537379

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021504

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021504

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256188

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0045169

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01215.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164409355700

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164409355700

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017286

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.257

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.237

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.693

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.693

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.107

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.107

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.762

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.762

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.17

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.17

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.107

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.107

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10899-006-9029-1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10899-006-9029-1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730610666028

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.10.002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.10.002




http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311407326

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0028656

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.43669916


http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9285-x



http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110410537379

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275697386_Socialization_tactics_self-Efficacy_and_newcomers_adjustments_to_organizations?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/9136649_Practice_as_a_process_of_simplification?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/9136649_Practice_as_a_process_of_simplification?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247729018_Discriminant_Validity_of_Self-Reported_Emotional_Intelligence_A_Multitrait-Multisource_Study?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==












https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11202125_Personality_and_Leadership_A_Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Review?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12532316_Personality_and_job_satisfaction_The_mediating_role_of_job_characteristics?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11169311_Are_Measures_of_Self-Esteem_Neuroticism_Locus_of_Control_and_Generalized_Self-Efficacy_Indicators_of_a_Common_Core_Construct?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==





https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11284305_Five-Factor_Model_of_Personality_and_Job_Satisfaction_A_Meta-Analysis?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6950112_Loving_Yourself_Abundantly_Relationship_of_the_Narcissistic_Personality_to_Self_and_Other_Perceptions_of_Workplace_Deviance_Leadership_and_Task_and_Contextual_Performance?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==





https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228079159_The_dispositional_causes_of_job_satisfaction_A_core_evaluations_approach?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229920838_Tell_me_who_you_are_and_I_will_tell_you_how_you_feel?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229920838_Tell_me_who_you_are_and_I_will_tell_you_how_you_feel?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6701615_Gambling_Control_Self-efficacy_as_a_Mediator_of_the_Effects_of_Low_Emotional_Intelligence_on_Problem_Gambling?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235300897_Emotional_Intelligence_and_Leadership_Effectiveness?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228196920_Strategic_Use_of_Emotional_Intelligence_in_Organizational_Settings_Exploring_the_Dark_Side?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229918358_Emotional_competence_and_work_performance_The_mediating_effect_of_proactivity_and_the_moderating_effect_of_job_autonomy?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223036294_Development_and_preliminary_validation_of_an_emotional_self-efficacy_scale?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267703233_An_examination_of_ability-based_emotional_intelligence_in_the_structured_employment_interview?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



�Law, D. W. (2003). An examination of personality traits as moderatingfactors of exhaustion in public accounting (Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation). Washington State University, Pullman, WA.

Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., Huang, G. H., & Li, X. (2008). The effects ofemotional intelligence on job performance and life satisfaction for theresearch and development scientists in China. Asia Pacific Journal ofManagement, 25, 51–69. doi:10.1007/s10490-007-9062-3

Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterionvalidity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for manage-ment studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 483–496.

�Lee, Y., Stettler, A., & Antonakis, J. (2011). Incremental validity andindirect effect of ethical development on work performance. Personalityand Individual Differences, 50, 1110–1115. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.036

LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changingtask contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, andopenness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53, 563–593. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00214.x

Lii, S. Y., & Wong, S. Y. (2008). The antecedents of overseas adjustmentand commitment of expatriates. International Journal of Human Re-source Management, 19, 296–313. doi:10.1080/09585190701799861

�Lindley, L. D. (2001). Personality, other dispositional variables, andhuman adaptability (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Iowa State Uni-versity, Ames.

Livingstone, H. A., & Day, A. L. (2005). Comparing the construct- andcriterion-related validity of ability-based and mixed-model measures ofemotional intelligence. Educational and Psychological Measurement,65, 767–779.

Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 425–431. doi:10.1002/job.318

Löckenhoff, C. E., Duberstein, P. R., Friedman, B., & Costa, P. T. (2011).Five-Factor personality traits and subjective health among caregivers:The role of caregiver strain and self-efficacy. Psychology and Aging, 26,592–604. doi:10.1037/a0022209

Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Cote, S., & Beers, M. (2005). Emotion regulationabilities and the quality of social interaction. Emotion, 5, 113–118.doi:10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.113

�Lu, L., Chang, Y., & Lai, Y. (2011). What differentiates success fromstrain: The moderating effects of self-efficacy. International Journal ofStress Management, 18, 396–412. doi:10.1037/a0025122

Lui, M. M. (2009). Can I succeed as an adolescent mother? Examining therole of emotional intelligence in predicting self-efficacy, academicachievement, and school attendance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

�Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positivepsychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performanceand satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541–572. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x

MacCann, C., Joseph, D. L., Newman, D. A., & Roberts, R. D. (2014).Emotional intelligence is a second-stratum factor of intelligence: Evi-dence from hierarchical and bifactor models. Emotion, 14, 358–374.doi:10.1037/a0034755

Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engage-ment. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x

Mak, A. S., & Tran, C. (2001). Big five personality and cultural relocationfactors in Vietnamese Australian students’ intercultural social self-efficacy. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 181–201.doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(00)00050-X

Marco, C. A., & Suls, J. (1993). Daily stress and the trajectory of mood:Spillover, response assimilation, contrast, and chronic negative affectiv-ity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1053–1063.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.1053

Márquez, P., Martin, R., & Brackett, M. A. (2006). Relating emotionalintelligence to social competence and academic achievement in highschool student. Psicothema, 18, 118–123.

Martin, J. H. (2002). Motivational processes and performance: The role ofglobal and facet personality traits (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Martin, W. E., Easton, C., Wilson, S., Takemoto, M. & Sullivan, S. (2004).Salience of emotional intelligence as a core characteristic of being acounselor. Counselor Education and Supervision, 44, 17–30. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2004.tb01857.x

Martini, P. H. (2008). Toward an integrated model of visionary leadership:A multilevel study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Regent Univer-sity, Virginia Beach, VA.

Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Seven myths aboutemotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 179–196. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1503_01

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelli-gence: Science and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligencemeets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267–298.

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure ofemotional intelligence: The case for ability scales. In R. Bar-On &J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp.320–324). New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.

Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities:Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507–536.doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093646

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? InP. S. D. Sluyter (Ed.), Emotional development and emotional intelli-gence: Implications for educators (pp. 3–34). New York, NY: BasicBooks.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer–Salovey–CarusoEmotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) item booklet. Toronto, Ontario,Canada: MHS.

�McElroy, J. C., Hendrickson, A. R., Townsend, A. M., & DeMarie, S. M.(2007). Dispositional factors in Internet use: Personality versus cognitivestyle. MIS Quarterly, 31, 809–820.

McKay, P. F., & McDaniel, M. A. (2006). A reexamination of Black–White mean differences in work performance: More data, more moder-ators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 538–554. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.538

�McKinney, A. P. (2003). Goal orientation: A test of competing models(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute andState University, Blacksburg.

�McNatt, D. B., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Boundary conditions of the Galateaeffect: A field experiment and constructive replication. Academy ofManagement Journal, 47, 550–565. doi:10.2307/20159601

�Meier, L. L., Semmer, N. K., Elfering, A., & Jacobshagen, N. (2008). Thedouble meaning of control: Three-way interactions between internalresources, job control, and stressors at work. Journal of OccupationalHealth Psychology, 13, 244–258. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.13.3.244

Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., Leroy, C., & Roy, E. (2007). Psychometricproperties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire: Factorstructure, reliability, construct, and incremental validity in a French-speaking population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 338–353.

Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., & Menil, C. (2006). Predicting resistance tostress: Incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence over alexithy-mia and optimism. Psicothema, 18, 79–88.

�Mirsaleh, Y. R., Rezai, H., Kivi, S. R., & Ghorbani, R. (2010). The roleof religiosity, coping strategies, self-efficacy, and personality dimen-sions in the prediction of Iranian undergraduate rehabilitation interns’satisfaction with their clinical experience. Clinical Rehabilitation, 24,1136–1143. doi:10.1177/0269215510375907

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10490-007-9062-3





http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190701799861


http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022209

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.113

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025122

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034755

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767%2800%2900050-X

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.1053



http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1503_01

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1503_01

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093646

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.538

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.538

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20159601

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.13.3.244

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269215510375907

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255593558_The_Meaning_of_Employee_Engagement?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6509289_Relating_emotional_intelligence_to_social_competence_and_academic_achievement_in_high_school_students?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238003821_MOTIVATIONAL_PROCESSES_AND_PERFORMANCE_THE_ROLE_OF_GLOBAL_AND_FACET_PERSONALITY_TRAITS?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238003821_MOTIVATIONAL_PROCESSES_AND_PERFORMANCE_THE_ROLE_OF_GLOBAL_AND_FACET_PERSONALITY_TRAITS?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242788108_Emotional_Intelligence_Meets_Traditional_Standards_for_an_Intelligence?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242788108_Emotional_Intelligence_Meets_Traditional_Standards_for_an_Intelligence?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284682534_Emotional_Development_and_Emotional_Intelligence_Educational_Implications?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279549836_Dispositional_factors_in_Internet_use_Personality_versus_cognitive_style?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7046247_A_Re-Examination_of_Black-White_Mean_Differences_in_Work_Performance?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274355346_Boundary_conditions_of_the_Galatea_effect_A_field_experiment_and_constructive_replication?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5283468_The_Double_Meaning_of_Control_Three-Way_Interactions_Between_Internal_Resources_Job_Control_and_Stressors_at_Work?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6313287_Psychometric_Properties_of_the_Trait_Emotional_Intelligence_Questionnaire_Factor_Structure_Reliability_Construct_and_Incremental_Validity_in_a_French-Speaking_Population?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6509283_Predicting_resistance_to_stress_Incremental_validity_of_trait_emotional_intelligence_over_Alexithymia_and_optimism?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46036249_The_role_of_religiosity_coping_strategies_self-efficacy_and_personality_dimensions_in_the_prediction_of_Iranian_undergraduate_rehabilitation_interns'_satisfaction_with_their_clinical_experience?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==





Moafian, F., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2009). The relationship between IranianEFL teachers’ emotional intelligence and their self-efficacy in languageinstitutes. System, 37, 708–718.

�Muniz, M., & Primi, R. (2007). Emotional intelligence and job perfor-mance in policemen: Criterion validity for the MSCEIT. Aletheia, 25,66–81.

Murensky, C. L. (2000). The relationship between emotional intelligence,personality, critical thinking ability, and organizational leadership per-formance at upper levels of management (Unpublished doctoral disser-tation). George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.

Murphy, K. (Ed.). (2006). A critique of emotional intelligence: What arethe problems and how can they be fixed? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Murphy, K., & Cleveland, J. (1995). Understanding performance ap-praisal: Social, organizational, and goal-oriented perspectives. New-bury Park, CA: Sage.

Nel, H. (2001). An industrial psychological investigation into the relation-ship between emotional intelligence and performance in the call centreenvironment (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Stellenbosch,South Africa.

Nelson, D., & Low, G. (1999). Exploring and developing emotionalintelligence skills. Corpus Christi, TX: Emotional Learning Systems.

Newman, D. A., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Been there, bottled that: Arestate and behavioral work engagement new and useful construct‘wines’? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 31–35. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00003.x

Newman, D. A., Jacobs, R. R., & Bartram, D. (2007). Choosing the bestmethod for local validity estimation: Relative accuracy of meta-analysisversus a local validity study versus Bayes analysis. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 92, 1394–1413. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1394

Newman, D. A., Joseph, D. L., & Hulin, C. L. (2010). Job attitudes andemployee engagement: Considering the attitude “A-factor”. In S. Al-brecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement (pp. 43–61). Northam-pton, MA: Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781849806374.00010

Newman, D. A., Joseph, D. L., & MacCann, C. (2010). Emotional intel-ligence and job performance: The importance of emotion regulation andemotional labor context. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3,159–164. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01218.x

Newsome, S., Day, A. L., & Catano, V. M. (2000). Assessing the predic-tive validity of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Dif-ferences, 29, 1005–1016.

Nguyen, H. D. (2003). Constructing a new theoretical framework for testwiseness and developing the knowledge of test-taking strategies(KOTTS) measure (Unpublished master’s thesis). Michigan State Uni-versity, East Lansing.

Norris, G. W. (2002). Using measures of personality and self-efficacy topredict work performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). OhioState University, Columbus.

Nowicki, S., Jr. (2000). Manual for the receptive tests of the DiagnosticAnalysis of Nonverbal Accuracy 2. Atlanta, GA: Emory University,Department of Psychology.

Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory (1st ed.). New York, NY:McGraw Hill.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.

O’Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story,P. A. (2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and jobperformance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32,788–818. doi:10.1002/job.714

O’Connor, R. M., Jr., & Little, I. S. (2003). Revisiting the predictivevalidity of emotional intelligence: Self-report versus ability-based mea-sures. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1893–1902.

�Oh, I. S., & Berry, C. M. (2009). The Five-Factor model of personalityand managerial performance: Validity gains through the use of 360

degree performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1498–1513. doi:10.1037/a0017221

�Okech, A. P. (2004). An exploratory examination of the relationshipsamong emotional intelligence, elementary school science teacher self-efficacy, length of teaching experience, race/ethnicity, gender, and age(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, CollegeStation.

Ones, D. S. (1993). The construct validity of integrity tests (Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.

�Ono, M., Sachau, D. A., Deal, W. P., Englert, D. R., & Taylor, M. D.(2011). Cognitive ability, emotional intelligence, and the Big Five per-sonality dimensions as predictors of criminal investigator performance.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 471– 491. doi:10.1177/0093854811399406

�Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differ-ences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 680–693. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680

�Oswald, F. L., Schmitt, N., Kim, B. H., Ramsay, L. J., & Gillespie, M. A.(2004). Developing a biodata measures and situational judgment inven-tory as predictors of college student performance. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 89, 187–207. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.187

�Owens, B. P. (2009). Humility in organizational leadership (Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle.

Page, J., Bruch, M. A., & Haase, R. F. (2008). Role of perfectionism andfive-factor model traits in career indecision. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 45, 811–815. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.08.013

Palmer, B. R., & Stough, S. (2001). Workplace SUIET: Swinburne Uni-versity Emotional Intelligence Test–Interim technical manual. Mel-bourne, VI, Australia: Swinburne University of Technology, Organisa-tional Psychology Research Unit.

�Parker, S. K. (2007). “That is my job”: How employees’ role orientationaffects their job performance. Human Relations, 60, 403–434. doi:10.1177/0018726707076684

Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal ofHealth and Social Behavior, 19, 2–21. doi:10.2307/2136319

Penrose, A., Perry, C., & Ball, I. (2007). Emotional intelligence and teacherself-efficacy: The contribution of teacher status and length of experi-ence. Issues in Educational Research, 17, 107–126.

Perlini, A. H., & Halverson, T. R. (2006). Emotional intelligence in theNational Hockey League. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 38, 109–119. doi:10.1037/cjbs2006001

Perry, C., Ball, I., & Stacey, E. (2004). Emotional intelligence and teachingsituations: Development of a new measure. Issues in Educational Re-search, 14, 29–43.

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence:Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxono-mies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425–448. doi:10.1002/per.416

�Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2006). The role of trait emotionalintelligence in a gender-specific model of organizational variables. Jour-nal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 552–569. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00019.x

�Piccolo, R. F., Judge, T. A., Takahashi, K., Watanabe, N., & Locke, E. A.(2005). Core self-evaluations in Japan: Relative effects on job satisfac-tion, life satisfaction, and happiness. Journal of Organizational Behav-ior, 26, 965–984. doi:10.1002/job.358

�Pierro, A. (1997). Caratteristiche strutturali della scala di General Self-Efficacy [Structural characteristics of the General Self-Efficacy Scale].Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 221, 29–38.

�Platt, S. D. (2010). The development of a leadership self-efficacy measure(Unpublished master’s thesis). Air Force Institute of Technology,Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH.

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00003.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00003.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1394

http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781849806374.00010

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01218.x


http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017221

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854811399406

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854811399406

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.187


http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726707076684

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726707076684

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2136319

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cjbs2006001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cjbs2006001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.416

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.416

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00019.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00019.x


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/35992217_The_relationships_between_emotional_intelligence_personality_critical_thinking_ability_and_organizational_leadership_performance_at_upper_levels_of_management?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5995678_Choosing_the_Best_Method_for_Local_Validity_Estimation_Relative_Accuracy_of_Meta-Analysis_Versus_a_Local_Study_Versus_Bayes-Analysis?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223096839_Assessing_the_Predictive_Validity_of_Emotional_Intelligence?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/34498723_Constructing_a_new_theoretical_framework_for_test_wiseness_and_developing_the_knowledge_of_test-taking_strategies_Kotts_measure?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254082853_Cognitive_Ability_Emotional_Intelligence_and_the_Big_Five_Personality_Dimensions_as_Predictors_of_Criminal_Investigator_Performance?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==





https://www.researchgate.net/publication/211392234_Resistance_to_Change_Developing_an_Individual_Differences_Measuer?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222139288_Role_of_perfectionism_and_Five_Factor_Model_traits_in_career_indecision?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/211392420_'That_is_my_job'_How_employees'_role_orientation_affects_their_job_performance?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/22492243_The_Structure_of_Coping?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/22492243_The_Structure_of_Coping?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286910527_Emotional_intelligence_and_teacher_self_efficacy_The_contribution_of_teacher_status_and_length_of_experience?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232439297_Emotional_intelligence_in_the_National_Hockey_League?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==








https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227662582_The_Role_of_Trait_Emotional_Intelligence_in_a_Gender-Specific_Model_of_Organizational_Variables1?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==





�Prati, L. M. (2004). Emotional intelligence as a facilitator of the emo-tional labor process (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida StateUniversity, Tallahassee.

Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confi-dence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Mea-sures, 6, 77–98. doi:10.1080/19312458.2012.679848

Rahim, M. A., Psenicka, C., Polychroniou, P., Zhao, J. H., Yu, C. S., Chan,K. A., . . . van Wyk, R. (2002). A model of emotional intelligence andconflict management strategies: A study in seven countries. Interna-tional Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10, 302–326. doi:10.1108/eb028955

�Ramassini, K. K. (2000). Parenting self-efficacy: A validity study (Un-published doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens.

Rastegar, M., & Memarpour, S. (2009). The relationship between emo-tional intelligence and self-efficacy among Iranian EFL teachers. Sys-tem, 37, 700–707. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.09.013

�Reece, N. A. (2007). The role of insecurity, external locus of control,neuroticism, low self-efficacy, and low self-esteem in romantic jealousy(Unpublished master’s thesis). California State University, Long Beach.

Ribadeneira, A. M. (2006). Familial, individual, social-cognitive, andcontextual predictors of career decision self-efficacy: An ecologicalperspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florida,Gainesville.

Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement:Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of ManagementJournal, 53, 617–635. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988

Roberts, B. W., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005).The structure of conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based onseven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58, 103–139. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00301.x

�Robinson, G. N. (2003). The application of social cognitive theory to theprediction of expatriate success (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).State University of New York, Albany.

Robinson, R. P. (2009). The effect of individual differences on trainingprocess variables in a multistage computer-based training context (Un-published doctoral dissertation). University of Akron, OH.

�Rode, J. C., Arthaud-Day, M. L., Mooney, C. H., Near, J. P., & Baldwin,T. T. (2008). Ability and personality predictors of salary, perceived jobsuccess, and perceived career success in the initial career stage. Inter-national Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 292–299. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00435.x

�Rosete, D., & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and its rela-tionship to workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness.Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 388–399. doi:10.1108/01437730510607871

Roth, P. L., Huffcutt, A. I., & Bobko, P. (2003). Ethnic group differencesin measures of job performance: A new meta-analysis. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88, 694–706. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.694

Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task,citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of jobperformance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 87, 66–80. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66

�Rozell, E. J., Pettijohn, C. E., & Parker, R. S. (2004). Customer-orientedselling: Exploring the roles of emotional intelligence and organizationalcommitment. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 405–424. doi:10.1002/mar.20011

Sachs, A. (2011, August 9). Emotional intelligence (1995), by DanielGoleman [Book review]. Retrieved August 19, 2014, from the Timewebsite: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2086680_2086683_2087663,00.html

Sala, F.. (2002). Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) technical manual(1st ed.). Boston, MA: Hay Group.

Saleem, H., Beaudry, A., & Croteau, A. (2011). Antecedents of computerself-efficacy: A study of the role of personality traits and gender.

Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1922–1936. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.04.017

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination,Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211. doi:10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG

Sardo, D. P. (2005, February). Making connections: The link betweenemotional intelligence and sales performance. Training and develop-ment in Australia. Paper presented at Persona Conference, San Fran-cisco, CA.

Sardo, S. (2004). Learning to display emotional intelligence. BusinessStrategy Review, 15, 14–17. doi:10.1111/j.0955-6419.2004.00295.x

�Schendel, C. L. (2010). Trainees’ ability to manage countertransference:An exploration of emotional intelligence and counselor self-efficacy(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University,University Park.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selectionmethods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implicationsof 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262

Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Outerbridge, A. N. (1986). Impact of jobexperience and ability on job knowledge, work sample performance, andsupervisory ratings of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,71, 432–439. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.432

Schmidt-Atzert, L., & Bühner, M. (2002, September). Development of aperformance measure of emotional intelligence. Paper presented at the43rd annual congress of the German Psychological Society. Humboldt-University, Berlin, Germany.

�Schmitt, N., Oswald, F. L., Kim, B. H., Imus, A., Merritt, S., Friede, A.,& Shivpuri, S. (2007). The use of background and ability profiles topredict college student outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,165–179. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.165

�Schumacher, L. A. (2005). The relationship between supply managers’emotional intelligence and their performance (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH.

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T.,Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of ameasure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differ-ences, 25, 167–177. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00001-4

Schwarzer, R., Bassler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schröder, K., & Zhang, J. X.(1997). The assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: Comparison of theGerman, Spanish, and Chinese versions of the General Self-EfficacyScale. Applied Psychology, 46, 69–88. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01096.x

Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The effect of commitment to alearning goal, self-efficacy, and the interaction between learning goaldifficulty and commitment on performance in a business simulation.Human Performance, 24, 189–204. doi:10.1080/08959285.2011.580807

�Semadar, A., Robins, G., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). Comparing the validityof multiple social effectiveness constructs in the prediction of manage-rial job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 443–461.doi:10.1002/job.385

Sergio, R. P. (2001). Emotional intelligence and mental ability as deter-minants of job performance among plant supervisors in selected man-ufacturing firm (Unpublished master‘s thesis). De La Salle University,Dasmariñas. Philippines.

�Sevinc, L. (2001). The effect of emotional intelligence on career success:Research on the 1990 graduates of business administration faculty ofIstanbul University (Unpublished master’s thesis). Istanbul University,Turkey.

Shadel, W. G., Cervone, D., Niaura, R., & Abrams, D. B. (2004). Inves-tigating the big five personality factors and smoking: Implications forassessment. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,26, 185–191. doi:10.1023/B:JOBA.0000022111.13381.0c

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.679848

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb028955

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb028955

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.013


http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00301.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00435.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00435.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730510607871

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730510607871

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.694

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20011

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20011

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2086680_2086683_2087663,00.html

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2086680_2086683_2087663,00.html

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.04.017

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.04.017

http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG

http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0955-6419.2004.00295.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.432

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.165

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869%2898%2900001-4



http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.580807


http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBA.0000022111.13381.0c

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254301116_Advantages_of_Monte_Carlo_Confidence_Intervals_for_Indirect_Effects?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235301814_A_model_of_emotional_intelligence_and_conflict_management_strategies_A_study_in_seven_countries?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==







https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223569954_The_relationship_between_emotional_intelligence_and_self-efficacy_among_Iranian_EFL_teachers?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228254128_Ability_and_Personality_Predictors_of_Salary_Perceived_Job_Success_and_Perceived_Career_Success_in_the_Initial_Career_Stage?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==





https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45173142_Emotional_Intelligence_and_its_Relationship_to_Workplace_Performance_Outcomes_of_Leadership_Effectiveness?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10597078_Ethnic_Group_Differences_in_Measures_of_Job_Performance_A_New_Meta-Analysis?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11448835_The_Relative_Importance_of_Task_Citizenship_and_Counterproductive_Performance_to_Global_Ratings_of_Job_Performance_A_Policy-Capturing_Approach?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/211393407_Customer-Oriented_Selling_Exploring_the_Roles_of_Emotional_Intelligence_and_Organizational_Commitment?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220496161_Antecedents_of_computer_self-efficacy_A_study_of_the_role_of_personality_traits_and_gender?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283803351_The_Validity_and_Utility_of_Selection_Methods_in_Personnel_Psychology_Practical_and_Theoretical_Implications_of_85_Years_of_Research_Findings?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232601470_Impact_of_Job_Experience_and_Ability_on_Job_Knowledge_Work_Sample_Performance_and_Supervisory_Ratings_of_Job_Performance?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6575596_The_use_of_background_and_ability_profiles_to_predict_college_student_outcomes?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247166550_Development_and_Validation_of_a_Measure_of_Emotional_Intelligence?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229478950_Comparing_the_Validity_of_Multiple_Social_Effectiveness_Constructs_in_the_Prediction_of_Managerial_Job_Performance?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




Shadish, W. R. (1996). Meta-analysis and the exploration of causal medi-ating processes: A primer of examples, methods, and issues. Psycholog-ical Methods, 1, 47–65. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.47

�Shahzad, K., Sarmad, M., Abbas, M., & Khan, M. A. (2011). Impact ofEmotional Intelligence (EI) on employee’s performance in telecomsector of Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 5, 1225–1231.

Shaikh, A. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Is it intelligence or a person-ality trait? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Laurentian University,Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B.,& Rogers, R. W. (1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction andvalidation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663–671. doi:10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663

�Sjoberg, L., Littorin, P., & Engelberg, E. (2005). Personality and emo-tional intelligence as factors in sales performance. Organisational The-ory and Practice, 2, 21–37.

�Slaski, M., & Cartwright, S. (2002). Health, performance, and emotionalintelligence: An exploratory study of retail managers. Stress and Health,18, 63–68. doi:10.1002/smi.926

�Smith, J. A., & Foti, R. J. (1998). A pattern approach to the study of leaderemergence. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 147–160. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90002-9

Smith, P. C. (1976). Behavior, results, and organizational effectiveness:The problem of criteria. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrialand organizational psychology (pp. 745–775). Chicago, IL: Rand Mc-Nally.

Smither, J., & Seltzer, J. (2001). Managerial Skills Questionnaire. Phila-delphia, PA: La Salle University Press.

�Sovern, H. S. (2008). Examining the relationships among core self-evaluations, pay preferences, and job satisfaction in an occupationalenvironment (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kansas State University,Manhattan.

Spurk, D., & Abele, A. E. (2011). Who earns more and why? A multiplemediation model from personality to salary. Journal of Business andPsychology, 26, 87–103. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9184-3

Stanley, M. A., Novy, D. M., Hopko, D. R., Beck, G., Averill, P. M., &Swann, A. C. (2002). Measures of self-efficacy and optimism in olderadults with generalized anxiety. Assessment, 9, 70–81. doi:10.1177/1073191102009001009

�Stewart, L. J., Palmer, S., Wilkin, H., & Kerrin, M. (2008). The influenceof character: Does personality impact coaching success? InternationalJournal of Evidence-Based Coaching and Mentoring, 6, 32–42.

Stone, H., Parker, J. D. A., & Wood, L. M. (2005, February). OPCleadership study: Exploring the relationship between school leadershipand emotional intelligence. Presented at the Ontario Principals’ Councilexecutive meeting, Toronto, ON, Canada.

�Strobel, M., Tumasjan, M., & Sporrle, M. (2011). Be yourself, believe inyourself, and be happy: Self-efficacy as a mediator between personalityfactors and subjective well-being. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,52, 43–48. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00826.x

�Stumpp, T., Muck, P. M., Hulsheger, U. R., Judge, T. A., & Maier, G. W.(2010). Core self-evaluations in Germany: Validation of a Germanmeasure and its relationships with career success. Applied Psychology,59, 674–700. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00422.x

�Sturman, E. D. (2011). Involuntary subordination and its relation topersonality, mood, and submissive behavior. Psychological Assessment,23, 262–276. doi:10.1037/a0021499

Sturman, M. C., Cheramie, R. A., & Cashen, L. H. (2005). The impact ofjob complexity and performance measurement on the temporal consis-tency, stability, and test–retest reliability of employee job performanceratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 269–283. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.269

Suls, J., Green, P. J., & Hillis, S. (1998). Emotional reactivity to everydayproblems, affective inertia, and neuroticism. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 24, 127–136. doi:10.1177/0146167298242002

Taccarino, J. R., & Leonard, M. A (1999). Manual for the SuccessTendencies Indicator. Chicago, IL: Taccarino.

Tapia, M. (2001). Measuring emotional intelligence. Psychological Re-ports, 88, 353–364.

Tapia, M., & Burry-Stock, J. (1998). Emotional Intelligence Inventory.Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

�Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W., & Noe, R. A. (2011). Beyond objectivity: Theperformance impact of the perceived ability to learn and solve problems.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 484–495. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.11.005

Thoms, P., Moore, K. S., & Scott, K. S. (1996). The relationship betweenself-efficacy for participating in self-managed work groups and the bigfive personality dimensions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17,349 –362. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199607)17:4�349::AID-JOB756�3.0.CO;2-3

�Timmerman, P. D. (2008). The impact of individual resiliency and leadertrustworthiness on employees’ voluntary turnover intentions (Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation). The University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Tombs, S. (2005). Challenging the bell curve: An assessment of the role ofemotional intelligence in career placement and performance (Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation). University of York, Heslington, UnitedKingdom.

Trevelyan, R. (2011). Self-efficacy and effort in new venture development.Journal of Management & Organization, 17, 2–16. doi:10.5172/jmo.2011.17.1.2

Tzelgov, J., & Henik, A. (1991). Suppression situations in psychologicalresearch: Definitions, implications, and applications. Psychological Bul-letin, 109, 524–536. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.3.524

Ugarriza, N. (2001). La evaluacion de la inteligencia emocional a través deinventario de BarOn (I–CE) en una muestra de Lima metropolitan [Theevaluation of emotional intelligence through the BarOn Inventory in asample of metropolitan Lima]. Persona, 4, 129–160.

van den Berg, P., & Feij, J. A. (2003). Complex relationships amongpersonality traits, job characteristics, and work behaviors. InternationalJournal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 326–339. doi:10.1111/j.0965-075X.2003.00255.x

�van Hooft, E. A. J., van der Flier, H., & Minne, M. R. (2006). Constructvalidity of multi-source performance ratings: An examination of therelationship of self-, supervisor-, and peer-ratings with cognitive andpersonality measures. International Journal of Selection and Assess-ment, 14, 67–81. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00334.x

van Rooy, D. L., Viswesvaran, C., & Pluta, P. (2005). An evaluation ofconstruct validity: What is this thing called emotional intelligence?Human Performance, 18, 445–462. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1804_9

Vecchione, M., & Caprara, G. V. (2009). Personality determinants ofpolitical participation: The contribution of traits and self-efficacy beliefs.Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 487–492. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.021

�Vieira, R. M. (2008). Exploring the relationship between emotional com-petence and leadership performance in corporate managers (Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation). Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ.

Villanueva, J. J., & Sanchez, J. C. (2007). Trait emotional intelligence andleadership self-efficacy: Their relationship with collective efficacy.Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 349 –357. doi:10.1017/S1138741600006612

Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., & Roth, P. L. (1998). Ameta-analytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople.Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 586–597. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.586

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.47

http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663

http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smi.926

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843%2898%2990002-9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843%2898%2990002-9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9184-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191102009001009

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191102009001009

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00826.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00422.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021499

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.269

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.269

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167298242002



http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/%28SICI%291099-1379%28199607%2917:4%3C349::AID-JOB756%3E3.0.CO;2-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/%28SICI%291099-1379%28199607%2917:4%3C349::AID-JOB756%3E3.0.CO;2-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/jmo.2011.17.1.2

http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/jmo.2011.17.1.2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.3.524



http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00334.x




http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600006612

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600006612

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.586

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.586

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268325911_Impact_of_Emotional_Intelligence_EI_on_employee's_performance_in_telecom_sector_of_Pakistan?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259982132_The_Self-Efficacy_Scale_Construction_and_Validation?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281522503_Personality_and_emotional_intelligence_as_factors_in_sales_performance?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229548859_Health_Performance_and_Emotional_Intelligence_An_Exploratory_Study_of_Retail_Managers?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223344605_A_pattern_approach_to_leader_emergence?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237027183_Behaviors_results_and_organizational_effectiveness_The_problem_of_criteria_In_Dunnette_MD?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29868209_Examining_the_relationships_among_core_self-evaluations_pay_preferences_and_job_satisfaction_in_an_occupational_environment?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226270308_Who_Earns_More_and_Why_A_Multiple_Mediation_Model_from_Personality_to_Salary?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11453635_Measures_of_Self-Efficacy_and_Optimism_in_Older_Adults_with_Generalized_Anxiety?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237251085_The_Influence_Of_Character_Does_Personality_Impact_Coaching_Success?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228079686_Emotional_Reactivity_to_Everyday_Problems_Affective_Inertia_and_Neuroticism?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11985553_Measuring_emotional_intelligence?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11985553_Measuring_emotional_intelligence?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6509279_A_validation_of_the_emotional_intelligence_inventory?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6509279_A_validation_of_the_emotional_intelligence_inventory?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251443894_Beyond_objectivity_The_performance_impact_of_the_perceived_ability_to_learn_and_solve_problems?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229527704_The_relationship_between_self-efficacy_for_participating_in_self-managed_work_groups_and_the_Big_Five_personality_dimensions?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==





https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280149530_The_impact_of_individual_resiliency_and_leader_trustworthiness_on_employees'_voluntary_turnover_intentions?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/35444896_Challenging_the_bell_curve_microform_an_assessment_of_the_role_of_emotional_intelligence_in_career_placement_and_performance?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228314793_Self-Efficacy_and_Effort_in_New_Venture_Development?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232440726_Suppression_Situations_in_Psychological_Research_Definitions_Implications_and_Applications?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psy-chometric meta-analysis and structural equation modeling. PersonnelPsychology, 48, 865–885. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01784.x

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Measurement error in “Big Fivefactors” personality assessment: Reliability generalization across studiesand measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 224–235. doi:10.1177/00131640021970475

Wanberg, C. R. (2012). The individual experience of unemployment.Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 369–396. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100500

�Wang, C. (2002). Emotional intelligence, general self-efficacy, and cop-ing style of juvenile delinquents. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 16,566–567.

Wee, S. G. H. (2010). Compromises in career-related decisions: Hypotheticalchoices, individual differences, and actual outcomes (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Wernimont, P. F., & Campbell, J. P. (1968). Signs, samples, and criteria.Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 372–376. doi:10.1037/h0026244

Wilson-Soga, N. (2009). Personality traits, self-efficacy of job perfor-mance, and susceptibility to stress as predictions of academic perfor-mance in nurse education programs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Walden University, Minneapolis, MN.

Wolff, S. B. (2006). Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) technicalmanual (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Hay Group.

Wong, C., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and followeremotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratorystudy. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243–274. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00099-1

Wong, C.-H., Law, K. S., & Wong, P.-M. (2004). Development andvalidation of a forced choice emotional intelligence measure for Chineserespondents in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21,535–559. doi:10.1023/B:APJM.0000048717.31261.d0

�Wu, M. B. (2008). Resident advisor general intelligence, emotional in-telligence, personality dimensions, and internal belief characteristics aspredictors of rated performance (Unpublished thesis). Wesleyan Uni-versity, Middletown, CT.

�Wu, Y. (2011). Job stress and job performance among employees in theTaiwanese finance sector: The role of emotional intelligence. SocialBehavior and Personality, 39, 21–31. doi:10.2224/sbp.2011.39.1.21

�Xie, J. L., Roy, J., & Chen, Z. (2006). Cultural and individual differencesin self-rating behavior: An extension and refinement of the culturalrelativity hypothesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 341–364.doi:10.1002/job.375

�Yamkovenko, B., & Holton, E. (2010). Toward a theoretical model ofdispositional influences on transfer of learning: A test of a structuralmodel. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 381–410. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20054

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelli-gence in the workplace: A critical review. Applied Psychology, 53,371–399. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00176.x

Zizzi, S. J., Deaner, H. R., & Hirschhorn, D. K. (2003). The relationshipbetween emotional intelligence and performance among college basket-ball players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 262–269. doi:10.1080/10413200305390

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.



http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970475

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100500

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100500

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0026244

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843%2802%2900099-1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843%2802%2900099-1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:APJM.0000048717.31261.d0




http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20054

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20054

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00176.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200305390

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200305390




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45714969_Compromises_in_career-related_decisions_Hypothetical_choices_individual_differencesand_actual_outcomes?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/17505168_Signs_Samples_and_Criteria?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/17505168_Signs_Samples_and_Criteria?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/36711694_Personality_traits_self-efficacy_of_job_performance_and_susceptibility_to_stress_as_predictors_of_academic_performance_of_nurse_education_programs?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223696457_The_effects_of_leader_and_follower_emotional_intelligence_on_performance_and_attitude_An_exploratory_study?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233495097_Job_stress_and_Job_performance_among_employees_in_the_Taiwanese_finance_sector_The_role_of_emotional_intelligence?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/211396319_Cultural_and_Individual_Differences_in_Self-Rating_Behavior_An_Extension_and_Refinement_of_the_Cultural_Relativity_Hypothesis?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/211396326_Toward_a_Theoretical_Model_of_Dispositional_Influences_on_Transfer_of_Learning_A_Test_of_a_Structural_Model?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227794541_Emotional_Intelligence_in_the_Workplace_A_Critical_Review?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232854809_The_Relationship_Between_Emotional_Intelligence_and_Performance_Among_College_Baseball_Players?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a70b0e576921b36c82f64d7f90a4dab9-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4NzIwNTYyMTtBUzozMDc3NDQzOTU5ODg5OTVAMTQ1MDM4MzM4OTkyOA==




Appendix A

Studies Excluded From Original Meta-Analyses

Study Predictor measure Criterion measure Reason for exclusion

Adeyemo (2007) Mixed EI (EIS; Schutte et al., 1998) Academic self-efficacy Not general self-efficacyAremu & Lawal (2009) Mixed EI (SREIT; Schutte et al., 1998) Police-specific self-efficacy Not general self-efficacyAshkanasy & Dasborough (2003) Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al.,

2002)Overall course assessment Not job performance

Austin, Evans, Goldwater, & Potter(2005)

Mixed EI (Austin, Saklofske, Huang,& McKenney, 2004)

Academic performance Not job performance

Avery (2003) Specific self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyBachman, Stein, Campbell, &

Sitarenios (2000)EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) Success in debt collection Not job performance

Baker (2007) — Emotional Stability Sensitivity used as ameasure of EmotionalStability

Barchard (2003) Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al.,1999)

Year-end grades Not job performance

Barfoot (2007) Self-rated ability EI (Wong & Law,2002)

General self-efficacy Self-rated ability EI

Bellamy, Gore, & Sturgis (2005) Mixed EI (Tapia & Burry-Stock, 1998) Specific self-efficacy Not general self-efficacyBernard, Hutchison, Lavin, &

Pennington (1996) Composite self-efficacy across domains Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyBishop & Johnson (2011) Cognitive ability (GPA) Self-efficacy in earing

course gradesGPA as a measure of

cognitive ability, notgeneral self-efficacy.

Boyatzis (2006) Mixed EI (developed in this study) Financial performance Not self-rated mixed EIBrackett & Mayer (2003) Mixed EI (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997;

SREIT; Schutte et al., 1998)High school rank & college

GPANot job performance

Breland & Donovan (2005) Task-specific self-efficacy Test performance in class Not generalself-efficacy; not jobperformance

Brizz (2004) Mixed EI (ECI–2.0; Boyatzis &Goleman, 2001)

Parishioner support Not job performance

C. Brown, George-Curran, & Smith(2003)

Mixed EI (Tapia, 2001) Career decision-makingself-efficacy

Not general self-efficacy

F. W. Brown, Bryant, & Reilly (2006) Mixed EI (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997) Subordinate-rated leadereffectiveness

Not supervisor-rated jobperformance

Byrne, Dominick, Smither, & Reilly(2007)

Mixed EI (ECI–2.0; Boyatzis &Goleman, 2001)

Coworker (e.g., peers,supervisors,subordinates) rating ofmanagerial skills


Calloway (2010) Self-rated ability EI (Wong & Law,2002)

General self-efficacy Self-rated ability EI

Cavins (2005) Mixed EI (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997) Director-rated studentleader performance

Not job performance

D. W. Chan (2008) Mixed EI (EIS; Schutte et al., 1998) General teacher self-efficacy

Not general self-efficacy

K.-Y. Chan (1999) Leadership self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyCikanek (2006) Mixed EI (ESAP; Nelson & Low,

1999)Counseling self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy

Collins (2002) Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al.,2000)

Multi-rater feedback ofexecutive success


DeRue & Morgeson (2007) General self-efficacy Supervisor-rated overallperformance

Not in real worksituation

Devaraj, Easley, & Grant (2008) Computer self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyDevonish & Greenidge (2010) Self-rated ability EI (Wong & Law,

2002)Supervisor-rated task

performanceSelf-rated ability EI

Drew (2007) Mixed EI (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997) Student teacherperformance

Mixture of other-ratingand self-rating

Easton (2004) Mixed EI (BEIS; Bedwell, 2001) Counseling self-efficacy Not general self-efficacyEdwards (1998) Health self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacy

(Appendices continue)

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


Appendix A (continued)


Elfenbein, Curhan, Eisenkraft,Shirako, & Baccaro (2008)

Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al.,2002)

Negotiation self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy

Felfe & Schyns (2006) Occupational self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyGerhardt, Rode, & Peterson (2007) Academic self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyGordon-Handler (2009) Mixed EI (ECI–2.0; Wolff, 2006) Supervisor-rated graduate

student therapyfieldwork performance

Not job performance

Graves (1999) Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al.,1999)

Performance in simulatedactivities

Not job performance

Griffin (2006) Computer self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyHammond, Lockman, & Boling (2010) Mixed EI (EIS; Schutte et al., 1998) Career decision-making

self-efficacyNot general self-efficacy

Hartman (2006) Career decision-making self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyHartsfield (2003) Self-rated ability EI (Wong & Law,

2002)General self-efficacy Self-rated ability EI

Heggestad & Morrison (2008) Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al.,2002)

Social self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy

Hendricks & Payne (2007) Leadership self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyHerbst, Marre, & Sibanda (2006) Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al.,

2002)Transformational leadership

practicesNot job performance

Higgs (2004) Mixed EI (EIQ-G; Dulewicz & Higgs,2000)

Performance assessment bythe personnel department


Higgs & Aitken (2003) Mixed EI (EIQ–Managerial; Dulewicz& Higgs, 2000)

Assessment center ratingsof leadership potential

Not job performance

Hirschi (2008) General self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Adolescent sample(mean age less than16)

Hopkins & Bilimoria (2007) Mixed EI (ECI; Boyatzis & Goleman,2001)

Supervisor-rated success(annual performance plusannual potential)

Not self-rated mixed EI

Huang, Chan, Lam, & Nan (2010) Self-rated ability EI (Wong & Law,2002)

Performance assessed byimmediate supervisors,colleagues, customers,and trainers on a dailybasis

Self-rated ability EI; Notsupervisor-rated orself-rated jobperformance.

Jennings & Palmer (2007) Mixed EI (360-degree GenosEmotional Intelligence Inventory;Gignac, 2010)

Objective performance Not self-rated mixed EI

Kämpfe & Mitte (2010) Self-efficacy in affect regulation Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyKaur, Schutte, & Thorsteinsson (2006) Mixed EI (Schutte et al., 1998) Teaching self-efficacy Not general self-efficacyKepes (2008) Sales self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyKerr, Garvin, Heaton, & Boyle (2006) Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al.,

2000)Subordinates’ rating of

supervisory leadershipeffectiveness


Kilic-Bebek (2009) Specific self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyKim, Cable, Kim, & Wang (2009) Self-rated ability EI (Law, Wong, &

Song, 2004)Supervisor-rated task

effectivenessSelf-rated ability EI

Langhorn (2004) Mixed EI (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997) Overall managementperformance

Effect size not available

Lii & Wong (2008) Mixed EI (Emotional IntelligenceQuotient Inventory; based onSalovey & Mayer, 1990)

Self-rated overseaadjustment

Not job performance

Löckenhoff, Duberstein, Friedman, &Costa (2011) Multidomain self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacy

Lopes, Salovey, Cote, Beers, & Petty(2005)

Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al.,2002)

SAT & GPA Not job performance

Mak & Tran (2001) Social self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyMárquez, Martin, & Brackett (2006) Ability EI (MSCEIT; Mayer et al.,

2002)GPA Not job performance

Martin (2002) Specific self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacy


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


Appendix A (continued)


Martin, Easton, Wilson, Takemoto, &Sullivan (2004) Mixed EI (EJI; Bedwell, 2003) Counseling self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy

Martini (2008) Self-rated ability EI (Wong & Law,2002)

Leader self-efficacy Self-rated ability EI; Notgeneral self-efficacy

Mikolajczak, Luminet, & Menil(2006)

Mixed EI (French TEIQue–LF;Mikolajczak et al., 2007)

Self-efficacy to pass exam Not general self-efficacy

Nel (2001) Mixed EI (ECI–2.0; Wolff, 2006) Organization-providedoverall performancerating (partly subjectiveand partly objective)

Not supervisor-rated orself-rated jobperformance

Nguyen (2003) Test-taking self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyNorris (2002) Self-efficacy for nursing work Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyOkech (2004) Ability EI (MEIS; Salovey & Mayer,

1990)Teaching self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy

Page, Bruch, & Haase (2008) Career decision-making self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyPearlin & Schooler (1978) Personal mastery measure Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyPenrose, Perry, & Ball (2007) Mixed EI (RTS; Perry et al., 2004) Teaching self-efficacy Not general self-efficacyRastegar & Memarpour (2009) Mixed EI (EIS; Schutte et al., 1998) Teaching self-efficacy Not general self-efficacyRibadeneira (2006) Career decision self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyG. N. Robinson (2003) Cross-cultural adjustment efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacySaleem, Beaudry, & Croteau (2011) Computer self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacySeijts & Latham (2011) Task-specific self-efficacy Task performance in an

experimentNot general

self-efficacy; Not jobperformance

Semadar, Robins & Ferris (2006) Mixed EI (SUEIT; Palmer & Stough,2001)

Leadership self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy

Sergio (2001) Mixed EI (ECI; Sala, 2002) Supervisor-rated jobperformance

Effect size not available

Shadel, Cervone, Niaura, & Abrams(2004) Self-efficacy to quit smoking Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacy

Sjoberg, Littorin, & Engelberg (2005) Ability EI (developed in this study) Organizational citizenshipbehavior

Not task performance

Spurk & Abele (2011) Occupational self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyStanley, Novy, Hopko, Beck, Averill,

& Swann (2002)General self-efficacy Big Five personality traits A sample of older adults

with generalizedanxiety disorder

Thoms, Moore, & Scott (1996) Specific self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyTrevelyan (2011) Entrepreneurial self-efficacy Objective job performance Not general self-efficacyvan den Berg & Feij (2003) Work self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyVecchione & Caprara (2009) Political self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyVillanueva & Sanchez (2007) Mixed EI (adapted from SSRI; Schutte

et al., 1998)Leadership self-efficacy Not general self-efficacy

Wee (2010) Occupational self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyWilson-Soga (2009) Nurse practice self-efficacy Big Five personality traits Not general self-efficacyWong, Law, & Wong (2004) Self-rated ability EI (NEI, developed in

this study; WLEIS, Wong & Law,2002)

Supervisor-rated salesperformance

Self-rated ability EI

M. B. Wu (2008) Mixed EI (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997) Self-rated resident advisorperformance

Not job performance

Note. BEIS � Bedwell Emotional Intelligence Scales; ECI � Emotional Competence Inventory; EI � emotional intelligence; EIS � EmotionalIntelligence Scale; SREIT � Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test; EJI � Emotional Judgment Inventory; ESAP � Emotional Skills AssessmentProcess; EQ-i � Emotional Quotient Inventory; GPA � grade point average; MEIS � Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale; MSCEIT � Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; EIQ-G � Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire–General; NEI � New Emotional Intelligence Scale; RTS �Reactions to Teaching Situations; SUEIT � Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test; SSRI � Schutte Self-Report Inventory; TEIQue–LF � TraitEmotional Intelligence Questionnaire–Long Form; WLEIS � Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale.


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


Appendix B

Primary Studies Relating Mixed Emotional Intelligence and Objective Results Criteria

Study N Predictor measure Predictor reliability Objective results measure r (uncorrected)

Ahmetoglu, Leutner, &Chamorro-Premuzic (2011)

528 TEIQue–SF (Petrides &Furnham, 2006), 30-item,7-point Likert

.89 Objective measure of entrepreneurialsuccess (i.e., no. of businessesstarted & income)

.14

Chipain (2003) 120 STI (Taccarino & Leonard,1999)

.79a Objective sales performance .42

Downey, Lee, & Stough (2011) 100 SUEIT–Workplace (Palmer &Stough, 2001), 64-item, 5-point scale

.82 Objective job performance (i.e., theannual revenue a consultantgenerates)

.27

Enhelder (2011) 717 EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997) .88 Objective sales performance (i.e., anaverage of the previous 4 monthsgross commission and what wasexpected by the financial servicesfirm)

.14

Perlini & Halverson (2006) 79 EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997), 133-item .79a Objective hockey playerperformance

.16

Sala (2002) 90 ECI 1.0 .79a Objective performance (i.e., studentretention rate)

.18

25 ECI 1.0 .79a Objective performance (i.e., studentacademic achievement)

.20

Sevinc (2001) 66 ECI .79a Objective career success (i.e., salary,position level, and no. ofpromotions)

.14

Tombs (2005) 60 EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997), 133-item .79a Objective performance (i.e.,commissions, measured inthousands of dollars, transformedusing a square root function)

.28

Zizzi, Deaner, & Hirschhorn(2003)

21 Schutte et al. (1998) .79a Objective baseball performance (i.e.,averaged from earned runs, walks,hits, strikeouts, and wild pitches[pitcher])

.34

40 .79a Objective baseball performance (i.e.,averaged from earned runs, walks,hits, strikeouts, and wild pitches[pitcher])

.01

Note. The mixed emotional intelligence (EI)–objective results correlation is meta-analytically estimated to be �̂ � .17 (k � 11, N � 1,846). Reliabilityof objective results measures was assumed to be 1.00. ECI � Emotional Competence Inventory; EQ-i � Emotional Quotient Inventory; STI � SuccessTendencies Indicator; SUEIT–Workplace � Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test–Workplace; TEIQue–SF � Trait Emotional IntelligenceQuestionnaire–Short Form.a Reliability of the mixed EI measure was not available; therefore, we substituted the average reliability of all mixed EI measures included in the originalmeta-analyses.

(Appendices continue)Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


Appendix C

Facet-Level Mixed Emotional Intelligence (EI) Results

Table C1Primary Studies Included in the Facet-Level Mixed EI Meta-Analyses

Study N Predictor measure (facet) rxx Criterion measure ryy r

Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Intrapersonal .82 Conscientiousness .78 .14Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Interpersonal .80 Conscientiousness .78 .11Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Adaptability .76 Conscientiousness .78 .37Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Stress Management .80 Conscientiousness .78 .17Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 General Mood .89 Conscientiousness .78 .10Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Intrapersonal .82 Extraversion .89 .51Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Interpersonal .80 Extraversion .89 .41Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Adaptability .76 Extraversion .89 .03Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Stress Management .80 Extraversion .89 .05Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 General Mood .89 Extraversion .89 .45Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Intrapersonal .82 Emotional Stability .86 .34Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Interpersonal .80 Emotional Stability .86 .17Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Adaptability .76 Emotional Stability .86 .28Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore (2007) 198 Stress Management .80 Emotional Stability .86 .46Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 198 General Mood .89 Emotional Stability .86 .64Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Intrapersonal .78 Conscientiousness .80 .17Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Interpersonal .79 Conscientiousness .80 .23Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Adaptability .79 Conscientiousness .80 .30Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Stress Management .79 Conscientiousness .80 .28Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 General Mood .83 Conscientiousness .80 .16Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Intrapersonal .78 Extraversion .83 .36Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Interpersonal .79 Extraversion .83 .50Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Adaptability .79 Extraversion .83 .04Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Stress Management .79 Extraversion .83 .05Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 General Mood .83 Extraversion .83 .41Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Intrapersonal .78 Emotional Stability .86 .28Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Interpersonal .79 Emotional Stability .86 .35Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Adaptability .79 Emotional Stability .86 .22Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 Stress Management .79 Emotional Stability .86 .58Austin, Saklofske, & Egan (2005) 174 General Mood .83 Emotional Stability .86 .47Brackett & Mayer (2003) 188 Intrapersonal .94 Ability EI .87 .07Brackett & Mayer (2003) 188 Interpersonal .88 Ability EI .87 .28Brackett & Mayer (2003) 188 Adaptability .81 Ability EI .87 .16Brackett & Mayer (2003) 188 Stress Management .84 Ability EI .87 .15Brackett & Mayer (2003) 188 General Mood .88 Ability EI .87 .08Byrne (2003) 325 Self-Awareness .67 Job performance

(supervisor-rated).80 .11

Byrne (2003) 325 Self-Management .83 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.80 .17

Byrne (2003) 325 Social Awareness .82 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.80 .29

Byrne (2003) 325 Relationship Management .86 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.80 .28


161 Self-Awareness .52 Conscientiousness .81 .25


161 Self-Management .83 Conscientiousness .81 .26


161 Social Awareness .70 Conscientiousness .81 .37


161 Relationship Management .87 Conscientiousness .81 .26


161 Self-Awareness .52 Extraversion .76 .38


161 Self-Management .83 Extraversion .76 .47


161 Social Awareness .70 Extraversion .76 .38


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


Table C1 (continued)



161 Relationship Management .87 Extraversion .76 .57


161 Self-Awareness .52 Emotional Stability .84 .37


161 Self-Management .83 Emotional Stability .84 .47


161 Social Awareness .70 Emotional Stability .84 .39


161 Relationship Management .87 Emotional Stability .84 .42

Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Intrapersonal .93 Conscientiousness .80 .54Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Interpersonal .86 Conscientiousness .80 .34Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Adaptability .87 Conscientiousness .80 .45Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Stress Management .86 Conscientiousness .80 .32Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 General Mood .91 Conscientiousness .80 .40Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Intrapersonal .94 Conscientiousness .83 .33Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Interpersonal .85 Conscientiousness .83 .21Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Adaptability .86 Conscientiousness .83 .37Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Stress Management .81 Conscientiousness .83 .16Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 General Mood .90 Conscientiousness .83 .17Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Intrapersonal .93 Extraversion .80 .48Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Interpersonal .86 Extraversion .80 .55Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Adaptability .87 Extraversion .80 .32Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Stress Management .86 Extraversion .80 .18Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 General Mood .91 Extraversion .80 .61Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Intrapersonal .94 Extraversion .83 .51Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Interpersonal .85 Extraversion .83 .51Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Adaptability .86 Extraversion .83 .40Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Stress Management .81 Extraversion .83 .22Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 General Mood .90 Extraversion .83 .64Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Intrapersonal .93 Emotional Stability .87 .59Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Interpersonal .86 Emotional Stability .87 .21Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Adaptability .87 Emotional Stability .87 .53Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 Stress Management .86 Emotional Stability .87 .54Dawda & Hart (2000) 118 General Mood .91 Emotional Stability .87 .69Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Intrapersonal .94 Emotional Stability .89 .70Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Interpersonal .85 Emotional Stability .89 .23Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Adaptability .86 Emotional Stability .89 .58Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 Stress Management .81 Emotional Stability .89 .58Dawda & Hart (2000) 124 General Mood .90 Emotional Stability .89 .77Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Intrapersonal .95 Conscientiousness .81 .44Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Interpersonal .90 Conscientiousness .81 .37Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Adaptability .89 Conscientiousness .81 .50Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Stress Management .85 Conscientiousness .81 .38Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 General Mood .89 Conscientiousness .81 .33Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Intrapersonal .95 Extraversion .78 .51Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Interpersonal .90 Extraversion .78 .47Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Adaptability .89 Extraversion .78 .36Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Stress Management .85 Extraversion .78 .27Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 General Mood .89 Extraversion .78 .36Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Intrapersonal .95 Emotional Stability .86 .63Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Interpersonal .90 Emotional Stability .86 .12Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Adaptability .89 Emotional Stability .86 .61Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 Stress Management .85 Emotional Stability .86 .68Day, Therrien, & Carroll (2005) 133 General Mood .89 Emotional Stability .86 .67Derksen, Kramer, & Katzko (2002) 873 Intrapersonal .92 Cognitive Ability .90 .08Derksen, Kramer, & Katzko (2002) 873 Interpersonal .85 Cognitive Ability .90 .04Derksen, Kramer, & Katzko (2002) 873 Adaptability .80 Cognitive Ability .90 .11Derksen, Kramer, & Katzko (2002) 873 Stress Management .84 Cognitive Ability .90 .13Derksen, Kramer, & Katzko (2002) 873 General Mood .87 Cognitive Ability .90 .11Di Fabio & Palazzeschi (2008) 169 Intrapersonal .79 Self-Efficacy .94 .47Di Fabio & Palazzeschi (2008) 169 Interpersonal .79 Self-Efficacy .94 .19Di Fabio & Palazzeschi (2008) 169 Adaptability .78 Self-Efficacy .94 .25Di Fabio & Palazzeschi (2008) 169 Stress Management .84 Self-Efficacy .94 .11


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.




Farrelly & Austin (2007) 199 Intrapersonal .94 Ability EI .87 .14Farrelly & Austin (2007) 199 Interpersonal .88 Ability EI .87 .22Farrelly & Austin (2007) 199 Adaptability .81 Ability EI .87 .18Farrelly & Austin (2007) 199 Stress Management .84 Ability EI .87 .17Farrelly & Austin (2007) 199 General Mood .88 Ability EI .87 .16Fillion (2001) 95 Intrapersonal .94 Cognitive Ability .90 .01Fillion (2001) 95 Interpersonal .89 Cognitive Ability .90 .04Fillion (2001) 95 Adaptability .78 Cognitive Ability .90 .05Fillion (2001) 95 Stress Management .82 Cognitive Ability .90 .01Fillion (2001) 95 General Mood .88 Cognitive Ability .90 .07Fillion (2001) 95 Intrapersonal .94 Ability EI .87 .09Fillion (2001) 95 Interpersonal .89 Ability EI .87 .16Fillion (2001) 95 Adaptability .76 Ability EI .87 .14Fillion (2001) 95 Stress Management .82 Ability EI .87 .14Fillion (2001) 95 General Mood .88 Ability EI .87 .11Gabel, Dolan, & Cerdin (2005) 59 Intrapersonal .83 Job performance


Gabel, Dolan, & Cerdin (2005) 59 Interpersonal .78 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.86 .07

Gabel, Dolan, & Cerdin (2005) 59 Adaptability .67 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.86 .02

Gabel, Dolan, & Cerdin (2005) 59 Stress Management .79 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.86 .10

Gabel, Dolan, & Cerdin (2005) 59 General Mood .70 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.86 .06

Goldsmith (2008) 24 Intrapersonal .82 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.88 .13

Goldsmith (2008) 24 Interpersonal .56 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.88 .33

Goldsmith (2008) 24 Adaptability .85 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.88 .12

Goldsmith (2008) 24 Stress Management .89 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.88 .15

Goldsmith (2008) 24 General Mood .88 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.88 .10

Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Intrapersonal .88 Conscientiousness .84 .41Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Interpersonal .80 Conscientiousness .84 .10Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Adaptability .76 Conscientiousness .84 .43Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Stress Management .84 Conscientiousness .84 .10Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 General Mood .85 Conscientiousness .84 .31Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Intrapersonal .88 Extraversion .91 .45Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Interpersonal .80 Extraversion .91 .30Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Adaptability .76 Extraversion .91 .02Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Stress Management .84 Extraversion .91 .01Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 General Mood .85 Extraversion .91 .36Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Intrapersonal .88 Emotional Stability .90 .35Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Interpersonal .80 Emotional Stability .90 .07Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Adaptability .76 Emotional Stability .90 .18Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Stress Management .84 Emotional Stability .90 .67Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 General Mood .85 Emotional Stability .90 .56Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Intrapersonal .88 Cognitive Ability .90 .01Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Interpersonal .80 Cognitive Ability .90 .02Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Adaptability .76 Cognitive Ability .90 .01Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 Stress Management .84 Cognitive Ability .90 .02Grubb & McDaniel (2007) 229 General Mood .85 Cognitive Ability .90 .18


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.




Hanna (2008) 46 Self-Awareness .67 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.83 .16

Hanna (2008) 46 Self-Management .83 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.83 .25

Hanna (2008) 46 Social Awareness .82 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.83 .08

Hanna (2008) 46 Relationship Management .86 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.83 .32

Kohan (2002) 399 Intrapersonal .83 Conscientiousness .73 .35Kohan (2002) 399 Interpersonal .93 Conscientiousness .73 .48Kohan (2002) 399 Adaptability .87 Conscientiousness .73 .60Kohan (2002) 399 Stress Management .78 Conscientiousness .73 .49Kohan (2002) 399 General Mood .83 Conscientiousness .73 .47Kohan (2002) 399 Intrapersonal .83 Extraversion .74 .54Kohan (2002) 399 Interpersonal .93 Extraversion .74 .44Kohan (2002) 399 Adaptability .87 Extraversion .74 .29Kohan (2002) 399 Stress Management .78 Extraversion .74 .66Kohan (2002) 399 General Mood .83 Extraversion .74 .53Kohan (2002) 399 Intrapersonal .83 Emotional Stability .80 .23Kohan (2002) 399 Interpersonal .93 Emotional Stability .80 .67Kohan (2002) 399 Adaptability .87 Emotional Stability .80 .64Kohan (2002) 399 Stress Management .78 Emotional Stability .80 .68Kohan (2002) 399 General Mood .83 Emotional Stability .80 .69Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Intrapersonal .93 Conscientiousness .80 .41Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Interpersonal .87 Conscientiousness .80 .34Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Adaptability .85 Conscientiousness .80 .57Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Stress Management .86 Conscientiousness .80 .45Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 General Mood .88 Conscientiousness .80 .36Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Intrapersonal .93 Extraversion .83 .56Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Interpersonal .87 Extraversion .83 .36Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Adaptability .85 Extraversion .83 .23Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Stress Management .86 Extraversion .83 .15Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 General Mood .88 Extraversion .83 .52Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Intrapersonal .93 Emotional Stability .86 .63Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Interpersonal .87 Emotional Stability .86 .32Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Adaptability .85 Emotional Stability .86 .56Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Stress Management .86 Emotional Stability .86 .66Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 General Mood .88 Emotional Stability .86 .57Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Intrapersonal .93 Cognitive Ability .90 .11Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Interpersonal .87 Cognitive Ability .90 .24Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Adaptability .85 Cognitive Ability .90 .05Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Stress Management .86 Cognitive Ability .90 .07Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 General Mood .88 Cognitive Ability .90 .01Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Intrapersonal .93 Ability EI .87 .26Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Interpersonal .87 Ability EI .87 .34Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Adaptability .85 Ability EI .87 .40Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 Stress Management .86 Ability EI .87 .28Livingstone & Day (2005) 211 General Mood .88 Ability EI .87 .41Lui (2009) 108 Intrapersonal .77 Self-Efficacy .93 .37Lui (2009) 108 Interpersonal .81 Self-Efficacy .93 .38Lui (2009) 108 Adaptability .80 Self-Efficacy .93 .33Lui (2009) 108 Stress Management .84 Self-Efficacy .93 .33Lui (2009) 108 General Mood .81 Self-Efficacy .93 .38Moafian & Ghanizadeh (2009) 89 Intrapersonal .80 Self-Efficacy .91 .31Moafian & Ghanizadeh (2009) 89 Interpersonal .80 Self-Efficacy .91 .33Moafian & Ghanizadeh (2009) 89 Adaptability .80 Self-Efficacy .91 .38Moafian & Ghanizadeh (2009) 89 Stress Management .80 Self-Efficacy .91 .43Moafian & Ghanizadeh (2009) 89 General Mood .80 Self-Efficacy .91 .48


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.




Murensky (2000) 90 Self-Awareness .52 Conscientiousness .73 .30Murensky (2000) 90 Self-Management .83 Conscientiousness .73 .33Murensky (2000) 90 Social Awareness .70 Conscientiousness .73 .21Murensky (2000) 90 Relationship Management .87 Conscientiousness .73 .39Murensky (2000) 90 Self-Awareness .52 Extraversion .79 .47Murensky (2000) 90 Self-Management .83 Extraversion .79 .24Murensky (2000) 90 Social Awareness .70 Extraversion .79 .24Murensky (2000) 90 Relationship Management .87 Extraversion .79 .49Murensky (2000) 90 Self-Awareness .52 Emotional Stability .79 .07Murensky (2000) 90 Self-Management .83 Emotional Stability .79 .20Murensky (2000) 90 Social Awareness .70 Emotional Stability .79 .10Murensky (2000) 90 Relationship Management .87 Emotional Stability .79 .11Murensky (2000) 90 Self-Awareness .52 Cognitive Ability .90 .09Murensky (2000) 90 Self-Management .83 Cognitive Ability .90 .10Murensky (2000) 90 Social Awareness .70 Cognitive Ability .90 .16Murensky (2000) 90 Relationship Management .87 Cognitive Ability .90 .22Newsome, Day, & Catano (2000) 137 Intrapersonal .92 Cognitive Ability .90 .04Newsome, Day, & Catano (2000) 137 Interpersonal .85 Cognitive Ability .90 .12Newsome, Day, & Catano (2000) 137 Adaptability .80 Cognitive Ability .90 .09Newsome, Day, & Catano (2000) 137 Stress Management .84 Cognitive Ability .90 .12Newsome, Day, & Catano (2000) 137 General Mood .87 Cognitive Ability .90 .02O’Connor & Little (2003) 90 Intrapersonal .94 Ability EI .87 .35O’Connor & Little (2003) 90 Interpersonal .88 Ability EI .87 .21O’Connor & Little (2003) 90 Adaptability .81 Ability EI .87 .22O’Connor & Little (2003) 90 Stress Management .84 Ability EI .87 .21O’Connor & Little (2003) 90 General Mood .88 Ability EI .87 .36Schumacher (2005) 35 Self-Awareness .67 Job performance


Schumacher (2005) 212 Self-Awareness .67 Self-rated job performance .80 .12Schumacher (2005) 35 Self-Management .83 Job performance


Schumacher (2005) 212 Self-Management .83 Self-rated job performance .80 .05Schumacher (2005) 35 Social Awareness .82 Job performance


Schumacher (2005) 212 Social Awareness .82 Self-rated job performance .80 .03Schumacher (2005) 35 Relationship Management .86 Job performance


Schumacher (2005) 212 Relationship Management .86 Self-rated job performance .80 .17Sevinc (2001) 71 Self-Awareness .67 Self-rated job performance .80 .23Sevinc (2001) 71 Self-Management .83 Self-rated job performance .80 .25Sevinc (2001) 71 Social Awareness .82 Self-rated job performance .80 .19Sevinc (2001) 71 Social Skills .86 Self-rated job performance .80 .31Shahzad, Sarmad, Abbas, & Khan

(2011)100 Self-Awareness .82 Self-rated job performance .73 .22

Shahzad, Sarmad, Abbas, & Khan(2011)

100 Self-Management .84 Self-rated job performance .73 .26


100 Social Awareness .81 Self-rated job performance .73 .39


100 Relationship Management .82 Self-rated job performance .73 .34

Shaikh (2004) 116 Intrapersonal .88 Conscientiousness .80 .13Shaikh (2004) 116 Interpersonal .85 Conscientiousness .80 .07Shaikh (2004) 116 Adaptability .83 Conscientiousness .80 .42Shaikh (2004) 116 Stress Management .82 Conscientiousness .80 .47Shaikh (2004) 116 General Mood .87 Conscientiousness .80 .20Shaikh (2004) 116 Intrapersonal .88 Extraversion .83 .11Shaikh (2004) 116 Interpersonal .85 Extraversion .83 .08


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.




Shaikh (2004) 116 Adaptability .83 Extraversion .83 .06Shaikh (2004) 116 Stress Management .82 Extraversion .83 .02Shaikh (2004) 116 General Mood .87 Extraversion .83 .23Shaikh (2004) 116 Intrapersonal .88 Emotional Stability .86 .16Shaikh (2004) 116 Interpersonal .85 Emotional Stability .86 .04Shaikh (2004) 116 Adaptability .83 Emotional Stability .86 .33Shaikh (2004) 116 Stress Management .82 Emotional Stability .86 .52Shaikh (2004) 116 General Mood .87 Emotional Stability .86 .33Shaikh (2004) 116 Intrapersonal .92 Cognitive Ability .90 .04Shaikh (2004) 116 Interpersonal .85 Cognitive Ability .90 .04Shaikh (2004) 116 Adaptability .80 Cognitive Ability .90 .03Shaikh (2004) 116 Stress Management .84 Cognitive Ability .90 .07Shaikh (2004) 116 General Mood .87 Cognitive Ability .90 .02Slaski & Cartwright (2002) 221 Intrapersonal .81 Job performance


Slaski & Cartwright (2002) 221 Interpersonal .73 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.80 .01

Slaski & Cartwright (2002) 221 Adaptability .77 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.80 .18

Slaski & Cartwright (2002) 221 Stress Management .84 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.80 .15

Slaski & Cartwright (2002) 221 General mood .83 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.80 .23

Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 383 Intrapersonal .81 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.88 .14

Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 383 Interpersonal .73 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.88 .18

Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 383 Adaptability .77 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.88 .08

Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 383 Stress Management .84 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.88 .10

Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 383 General Mood .83 Job performance(supervisor-rated)

.88 .12

Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 412 Intrapersonal .81 Self-rated job performance .83 .37Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 412 Interpersonal .73 Self-rated job performance .83 .26Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 412 Adaptability .77 Self-rated job performance .83 .32Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 412 Stress Management .84 Self-rated job performance .83 .24Stone, Parker, & Wood (2005) 412 General Mood .83 Self-rated job performance .83 .29Tombs (2004) 75 Intrapersonal .88 Conscientiousness .80 .43Tombs (2004) 75 Interpersonal .85 Conscientiousness .80 .45Tombs (2004) 75 Adaptability .83 Conscientiousness .80 .46Tombs (2004) 75 Stress Management .82 Conscientiousness .80 .32Tombs (2004) 75 General Mood .87 Conscientiousness .80 .25Tombs (2004) 32 Intrapersonal .88 Conscientiousness .80 .17Tombs (2004) 32 Interpersonal .85 Conscientiousness .80 .15Tombs (2004) 32 Adaptability .83 Conscientiousness .80 .20Tombs (2004) 32 Stress Management .82 Conscientiousness .80 .07Tombs (2004) 32 General Mood .87 Conscientiousness .80 .05Tombs (2004) 60 Intrapersonal .88 Conscientiousness .80 .37Tombs (2004) 60 Interpersonal .85 Conscientiousness .80 .30Tombs (2004) 60 Adaptability .83 Conscientiousness .80 .47Tombs (2004) 60 Stress Management .82 Conscientiousness .80 .25Tombs (2004) 60 General Mood .87 Conscientiousness .80 .30Tombs (2004) 75 Intrapersonal .88 Extraversion .83 .22Tombs (2004) 75 Interpersonal .85 Extraversion .83 .25Tombs (2004) 75 Adaptability .83 Extraversion .83 .05Tombs (2004) 75 Stress Management .82 Extraversion .83 .08Tombs (2004) 75 General Mood .87 Extraversion .83 .29


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.




Tombs (2004) 32 Intrapersonal .88 Extraversion .83 .58Tombs (2004) 32 Interpersonal .85 Extraversion .83 .35Tombs (2004) 32 Adaptability .83 Extraversion .83 .05Tombs (2004) 32 Stress Management .82 Extraversion .83 .40Tombs (2004) 32 General Mood .87 Extraversion .83 .24Tombs (2004) 60 Intrapersonal .88 Extraversion .83 .64Tombs (2004) 60 Interpersonal .85 Extraversion .83 .48Tombs (2004) 60 Adaptability .83 Extraversion .83 .41Tombs (2004) 60 Stress Management .82 Extraversion .83 .03Tombs (2004) 60 General Mood .87 Extraversion .83 .62Tombs (2004) 75 Intrapersonal .88 Emotional Stability .86 .39Tombs (2004) 75 Interpersonal .85 Emotional Stability .86 .17Tombs (2004) 75 Adaptability .83 Emotional Stability .86 .37Tombs (2004) 75 Stress Management .82 Emotional Stability .86 .60Tombs (2004) 75 General Mood .87 Emotional Stability .86 .53Tombs (2004) 32 Intrapersonal .88 Emotional Stability .86 .34Tombs (2004) 32 Interpersonal .85 Emotional Stability .86 .01Tombs (2004) 32 Adaptability .83 Emotional Stability .86 .52Tombs (2004) 32 Stress Management .82 Emotional Stability .86 .51Tombs (2004) 32 General Mood .87 Emotional Stability .86 .65Tombs (2004) 60 Intrapersonal .88 Emotional Stability .86 .53Tombs (2004) 60 Interpersonal .85 Emotional Stability .86 .40Tombs (2004) 60 Adaptability .83 Emotional Stability .86 .58Tombs (2004) 60 Stress Management .82 Emotional Stability .86 .57Tombs (2004) 60 General Mood .87 Emotional Stability .86 .49M. B. Wu (2008) 36 Intrapersonal .82 Self-rated job performance .96 .41M. B. Wu (2008) 36 Interpersonal .83 Self-rated job performance .96 .19M. B. Wu (2008) 36 Adaptability .79 Self-rated job performance .96 .01M. B. Wu (2008) 36 Stress Management .82 Self-rated job performance .96 .37M. B. Wu (2008) 36 General Mood .83 Self-rated job performance .96 .20

Note. rxx refers to reliability of the predictor. ryy refers to reliability of the criterion. When reliability information was not available in the primary study,the average reliability of all available measures included in the original meta-analyses was substituted. Self-Awareness, Self-Management, SocialAwareness, and Relationship Management are dimensions of the Emotional Competence Inventory/Emotional and Social Competence Inventory.Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, Stress Management, and General Mood are dimensions of the Emotional Quotient Inventory.


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


Table C2Results From Facet-Level Mixed EI Meta-Analyses

k N r �̂ SD�

95% CI 80% CI

LL UL LL UL

ConscientiousnessECI

Self-Awareness 2 251 .27 .42 .00 .23 .30 .42 .42Self-Management 2 251 .29 .36 .00 .24 .33 .36 .36Social Awareness 2 251 .31 .42 .00 .21 .42 .42 .42Relationship Management 2 251 .31 .37 .00 .22 .39 .37 .37

EQ-iIntrapersonal 12 1,869 .33 .39 .11 .26 .40 .25 .54Interpersonal 12 1,869 .27 .33 .17 .18 .37 .11 .56Adaptability 12 1,869 .46 .57 .10 .40 .52 .45 .70Stress Management 12 1,869 .31 .40 .16 .23 .40 .19 .61General State of Mood 12 1,869 .27 .33 .19 .17 .37 .09 .57

ExtraversionECI



Emotional StabilityECI


EQ-iIntrapersonal 12 1,869 .30 .34 .35 .13 .48 .11 .79Interpersonal 12 1,869 .01 .01 .42 .20 .22 .53 .55Adaptability 12 1,869 .18 .20 .52 .08 .43 .47 .87Stress Management 12 1,869 .32 .36 .62 .02 .62 .43 1.00General State of Mood 12 1,869 .31 .34 .59 .12 .50 .42 1.00

Ability EIECI

Self-Awareness 0Self-Management 0Social Awareness 0Relationship Management 0

EQ-iIntrapersonal 5 783 .17 .19 .06 .09 .26 .11 .28Interpersonal 5 783 .26 .30 .00 .20 .31 .30 .30Adaptability 5 783 .23 .28 .08 .14 .32 .17 .38Stress Management 5 783 .20 .23 .00 .15 .24 .23 .23General State of Mood 5 783 .23 .26 .13 .10 .35 .09 .43

Cognitive AbilityECI



Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.



k N r �̂ SD�

95% CI 80% CI

LL UL LL UL


Self-Efficacya

ECISelf-Awareness 0Self-Management 0Social Awareness 0Relationship Management 0


Self-Rated Job PerformanceECI



Job Performance (Supervisor-Rated)

ECISelf-Awareness 3 406 .10 .14 .08 .03 .31 .04 .24Self-Management 3 406 .20 .26 .00 .18 .34 .26 .26Social Awareness 3 406 .27 .35 .00 .25 .45 .35 .35Relationship Management 3 406 .30 .38 .00 .32 .44 .38 .38


Note. k � no. of effect sizes in the meta-analysis; N � total sample size in the meta-analysis; r � sample-size-weighted mean correlation; �̂ � correlationcorrected for attenuation in predictor and criterion; SD� � standard deviation of corrected correlation; correlations with supervisor-rated job performanceare also corrected for range restriction using the average ratio of restricted to unrestricted standard deviations for mixed emotional intelligence (EI; i.e., .95).95% CI � 95% confidence interval; 80% CI � 80% credibility interval; LL � lower limit; UL � upper limit; EQ-i � Emotional Quotient Inventory; ECI �Emotional Competence Inventory.a No primary studies were available regarding the relationship between mixed EI facets and general self-efficacy; therefore, primary studies involving therelationship between specific self-efficacy and mixed EI facets were substituted for these meta-analytic effect sizes.


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


Received April 25, 2012Revision received June 18, 2014

Accepted July 9, 2014 �

Table C3Meta-Analytic Regression Predicting Facet-Level Mixed Emotional Intelligence

Predictor

Dependent variable

Intrapersonala Interpersonala Adaptabilitya Stress Managementa General Moodb

Ability EI .13� .33� .28� .22� .14�

Conscientiousness .44� .43� .68� .54� .17�

Extraversion .62� .57� .33� .40� .37�

Emotional Stability .24� .13� .10� .38� .12�

Cognitive Ability .01 .11� .04� .08� .04General Self-Efficacy .43� .38� .49� .65� .01Self-Rated Performance .33� .28� .31� .27� .17�

R2 .56� .49� .50� .41� .35�

Adjusted R2 .55� .49� .50� .41� .35�

Note. Standardized regression coefficients. EI � emotional intelligence.a Harmonic mean N � 1,480. b Harmonic mean N � 1,317. Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, Stress Management, and General Mood are facetsof the Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997).� p � .05.

Table C4Meta-Analytic Regression Predicting Job Performance From Facet-Level Mixed Emotional Intelligence

Predictor

Dependent variable: Job performance

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Ability emotional intelligence .18� .19� .20� .27� .25� .18�

Conscientiousness .33� .37� .36� .54� .48� .33�

Extraversion .20� .25� .24� .30� .31� .20�

Emotional Stability .09� .11� .09� .12� .20� .09�

Cognitive Ability .43� .43� .42� .44� .45� .42�

General Self-Efficacy .52� .56� .54� .67� .70� .52�

Self-Rated Performance .42� .44� .43� .51� .49� .41�

Mixed emotional intelligence facetsIntrapersonal .09�

Interpersonal .06Adaptability .32�

Stress Management .28�

General Mood .01

R2 .395� .398� .397� .445� .443� .395�

Change in R2 .003� .002 .050� .048� .000

Note. Standardized regression coefficients. N � 687, which is the sample size for the emotional intelligence facet–job performance relationship.Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Adaptability, Stress Management, and General Mood are facets of the Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997).� p � .05.

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.


The author has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate.The author has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate.

why does self-reported emotional intelligence predict job performance… · 2016-12-23 · rather...

Documents